Ann Coulter calls out Libertarians for avoiding the tough issues and playing popular politics

By Wilson
Updated 02/22/2013 | 1:59 PM EST

Your browser does not support iframes.

Ann Coulter got into a little hot water with Libertarians last night during an on air debate with John Stossel. TheBlaze.com reports:

Conservative talker Ann Coulter appeared Thursday on Fox Business Network’s “Stossel” to do battle with the show’s Libertarian host — and his 1,400+ Libertarian guests.

Their biggest point of contention? Social Conservatism versus the Libertarian “Individuals Should Be Left Alone” approach.

The evening began pleasantly enough, the two discussing whether the U.S. should’ve invaded Iraq following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Coulter believes military action was justified because Saddam Hussein was “definitely looking for uranium from Niger.”

But then things became a little more heated when Stossel decided to shift gears and brought up legalizing drugs.

“Libertarians and pot,” Coulter laughed. “This is why people think libertarians are pu**ies.”

Glenn, thinking more on the side of the way the progressive Republicans like John McCain will drop their principals and become buddy-buddy with Democrats in Congress on issues like immigration to earn votes, wasn’t so sure.

“Who do you know that is a Libertarian that is friends with somebody like Paul Krugman or Barack Obama?” Glenn asked. ” I guess maybe in Hollywood?”

But that’s not the way Pat was looking at it. Pat, like Ann, was referring to the Libertarian base — the young, Ron Paul, Occupy Wall Street types.

That, Glenn can identify with. Those are the Libertarians that refuse to have a conversation with Glenn about anything because they don’t see eye-to-eye on one or two issues. They’re the Libertarians that will scream and shout about the drug war, but don’t make any noise about the heavy regulations destroy small businesses and killing jobs. Whether it’s because they’re young, and that’s not really affecting them yet or it’s because they’re thats their mechanism to bring people from the left to their side of the argument, it’s making them a tool for the Democrats and an antagonist to the Republicans.

Glenn explained that he recently sent one of his employees, Jon, to a Libertarian convention in D.C. Jon thought the people there were great, but about half of them hated Glenn. And when he tried to find out why, he couldn’t even have a conversation with them — they weren’t interested in coming together on the things they do agree on. It’s all or nothing. The individuals who dislike Glenn that Jon was able to talk to based the entire conversation around Ron Paul, and how Glenn doesn’t agree with everything that Ron Paul says.

“What I can’t understand is that isn’t the definition of ‘Libertarianism’ that we all are different and we’re individuals, and we believe in the power of the individual?” Glenn asked.

“That’s exactly what Ann Coulter is saying here,” Stu responded.

“Right. And I believe in the power of the individual to choose. I don’t have to agree with you on everything,” Glenn added.

Glenn went on to add that this is why he doesn’t understand so many of the Ron Paul supporters who dislike him for not always agreeing with Ron Paul. They let what he supports dictate all of their opinions on everyone else. If someone doesn’t stand shoulder to shoulder with Ron Paul, they immediately are on the attack.

“You are supposed to have a mind of your own,” Glenn said, “and you’re not supposed to be about an individual. Libertarianism is about a set of ideas — maximum freedom — not an individual.”

Penn Jillete is one of the Libertarians that has really been teaching Glenn what being a real Libertarian looks like in today’s society, and how it works in all of the complicated issues facing our country. One of the things they’ve been discussing recently is the “tribal mentality”.

“He hates tribes,” Glenn said of Penn. “I didn’t really understand it at first. He’s like i just really hate tribes and how we all get into this really tribal mentality.”

Glenn explained that he started to understand it the other day when he reflected on where the GOP is right now. Conservatives are really free of “the machinery” of the GOP “tribe” right now.

“We’re about 18 months away from them herding us again,” he explained.

Glenn believes that the GOP machine is going to be pushing everyone to get behind Chris Christie. If there isn’t another person, or group, or a stronger candidate that freedom minded people can get behind and support we’re in trouble. For Glenn, he thinks this person is Rand Paul.

“The idea of liberty and maximum freedom and the least about of government without anarchy is not your idea. It’s the founders idea,” Glenn said address those people who are so quick to attack him for his Libertarian transition.

“You would think at this time in our country, we have the opportunity to get rid of the party system,” he added. “But we have 18 months to do it. We have an opportunity to destroy it right now. But it won’t be done by crazies, radicals, and people who’re shouting other people down.”

Glenn explained that with TheBlaze he is trying to shine a light on the Libertarian idea — the idea of maximum freedom — but every time he does, he attacked for it because someone thinks he and TheBlaze need to pass some kind of litmus test to go and learn more about what the Libertarians are doing, which is exactly what happened at this convention.

“We go in, we tried to understand it. We tried to make some friends,” Glenn explained.

But, despite being the only media organization at this Libertarian convention, they were attacked for it.

“Do you think anybody who doesn’t really believe it is going to help?” he asked. “We believe it. So we’ll be back. And we’ll be back at all of the conventions, and we’ll report and we will try to learn, and continue to hire people. Because we believe it.”

Say what you will about Ann Coulter she calls matters as she sees them; and in this case she is right, the Libertarians have to one degree or another been avoiding the tough issues and have played to popular politics.

We need among Libertarians and Conservatives people who will stand with integrity for what they believe in and hold fast; we may not agree on everything or every subject, yet enough common ground can be found for all of us to work with and set the nation back on course to restoring the nation and the Constitution.

It is past time for the madness of the Progressives, Democrats and all Socialists to be ended; we have little time left to clean house and begin making amends.

Draxx

It is going to be hard to find someone like that, since Americans have Lost Their Culture that Teaches Honor, Integrity, and Truth! I believe that there are people out there like that, but most are Hard Hit by the Leftist Propaganda and Smeared Until the Common Person Does Not Believe That The Good Politician has these qualities…

I am decent person, not perfect but decent; and my wife asked me to not get involved in politics directly because she fears that I would end up like JFK. I am far too involved and concerned about the people on the Poor Side of the Social/Political Spectrum. I am far too concerned about Defending the Consitution as one of my friends stated, I bounced back that he was not concerned enough! I believe that the Welfare State of Politics Needs to be Greatly Reduced, and I know way too many people (including family on the welfare system) that think I am insane for suggesting the reduction, and thus they Will Not Support My Efforts To Change The System. So I get slammed from the Top & Bottom constantly. Will I stop discussing this with them? No, not until I no longer breathe! I go to Town Hall Meetings, I meet with community leaders (usually to no avail), and I discuss this with family and friends. But, without My Wife’s Support I Will Not Pursue Greater Endeavors (with regret), and I am afraid that there are many, many good people out there in the same boat…

But, you are right that we need those kinds of people and sooner than later!!!

The Kirby’s

duplicate…sorry.

Joshua Boschke

“the Libertarians have to one degree or another been avoiding the tough issues and have played to popular politics.”

Looks like someone has been listening to too much Fox News. The libertarians have been the ONLY ones who have actually been calling everyone out on the tough issues. Who brought up the issue of the Federal Reserve, unjustifiable and unsustainable wars, disappearing civil liberties, eliminating the income tax, dealing with entitlements, and ending the drug war? Libertarians did all of that. You’re welcome.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_64WBESDSHTBTDAT7TF7F7YPVYI Marc

Yes they call everyone out and never once do they put forth an ACHIEVABLE plan and agenda to change anything.

They are content screaming from soap boxes about things that simply can’t be changed or won at this moment in time.

They refuse to see that you must win elections in order to even start changing things and peoples minds so that maybe those very things they want can be achieved.

Start helping to win elections or go away.

Anonymous

Only “ACHIEVABLE” if you and the other mainstream, big government, big spending, warmongering, social engineering voters get with the program and SUPPORT liberty with your votes. Ron Paul had an achievable plan. What he didn’t have was a fair shake in the media or the party machine. Your vote and the votes of those other people who claimed to support his ideas but said he was “un-electable” could have elected him or, at least, changed the dialogue and the direction we are heading.

BS61

I think that Ron Paul did have as fair a shake as anyone does with the media. He cannot communicate effectively and he should have been more of a ‘Newt’ type in response to legalizing drugs or ending wars and go on the attack on the questioner and turn it around on them that there are more important things than what are normal libertaran beliefs.

If Rand speaks as badly as his father, he will lose. I know that he will be a Libertarian President if elected, but not a dictatorship where it’s his way or the highway. I believe he can teach a sorely uneducated country about the Constitution and Spending and governments role.

http://www.facebook.com/william.vining.3 William Vining

Are you kidding ? Beck and Pat Gray did everything they could to block Ron Paul, at every opportunity, the same was true of all Big Government Conservative Talk Radio. Hilarious how now Rove is their bogey man, when Beck was in his back pocket for years.

Ron Paul had a LOT more to say about the economy, the loss of individual liberty under big govt, the privately owned ‘Fed’, our debt & over spending & other BIG ISSUES than he did about RE-legalizing cannabis & drugs & the war on some drugs.

Glenn did some spinning in the article, equating Libertarians with occupy wall street. That’s a cheap & inaccurate shot.

Also saying ” “You are supposed to have a mind of your own,” Glenn said, “and you’re
not supposed to be about an individual. Libertarianism is about a set of
ideas — maximum freedom — not an individual.” ” is not accurate.

We who support libertarian ideas know that it’s the individual who must be set free. How do you recapture freedom & liberty for all WITHOUT restoring them to individuals? It’s the ‘set of ideas’ we have that will, if implemented again, bring a return to Constitutional govt.

What base is there to work from FOR individual freedom if we DON”T have a set of ideas?

Regarding Ann, she never did like Ron Paul. She is in her core IMO a supporter, tacitly or other wise, of the GOP establishment. I never heard her say any thing about what the GOP leadership did to bury Ron’s campaign.

Hopefully I am wrong on that last statement. But I did a search & found no evidence that Ann exposed what the GOP, Fox ‘New’ or the fringe stream media were doing to hinder, misrepresent & stop Ron Paul’s nomination.

Bottom line, I think Ann is a RINO-CINO.

And once again we find the GOP trying to push on us more big govt establishment candidates like Rubio & Christie.

SamFox

BS61

SamFox As a former Dem, I have a long time to make up in getting educated. I guess I thought that Ron Paul got a fair shake from Fox because I saw him so many times on Cavuto and Fox Business and they didn’t seem to treat him as a nut. O also loved watching the Judge. The only ones that I used to watch on Fox News was Glenn Beck and Greta. I’m not a fan of Ann in the least. I guess the problem that I had with Ron Paul is him saying at that debate that he would legalize drugs and pull out of all military zones. That may appeal to Libertarians but seems crazy to normal folks watching. I wish that he had said that his position is well known, now lets talk about Obama destroying the financial system or something else. I personally believe that we should be in charge of our own bodies and what we put in to them, but I don’t trust that the rest of the publically educated kids will act responsibly. His son Rand is playing things much better than Ron did. He is playing the game, I believe to save the country and get a fiscal conservative to lead our country.

What I hope brings you hope is that thanks to the internet, I’ve gone from being lied to by the liberal press to Fox and then Fox doesn’t report much of anything important either. I’ll stick with the internet and talk radio to be informed.

Anonymous

And here we go again. Ron Paul is God and anyone who doesn’t believe EXACTLY as he does is evil and working to destroy the constitution. Even when he attacks individual members of the military, you jump in with both feet, willing to support ANYTHING the guy says, even when you know he made a mistake or he was wrong. In trying to show him how much you support him, you and his “true believers” take it even further, calling your hatred, courage. It is not courage to revel in the violent death of a fellow American who served his country to the best of his ability. It is cowardice and social ineptitude on a scale write large. Ron Paul had my vote right up to the debate in which he said he completely understands Osama bin Laden and thinks this nation is terrible because of our presence in other countries. He said that we deserved 9/11 and that the people who committed these murders were freedom fighters. He greatly disappointed me because, while I do agree that we have too many deployments to too many places (especially with Democrat presidents who have never served who are all too willing to waste the lives of young men and women in the furthering of radical Islam), he takes it so much further and attacks the individual soldiers of our military as war mongering, psychotic and murderous! And, true to form, his supporters not only back him in this, you take it further and further, reveling in revenge, death, hatred…it never stops with you people. You demonstrate a tendency for violence that borders on the sociopathic, yet you claim to be the representatives of peace. I would consider Rand Paul for President, but Ron Paul has proven, by his own words, that he is unworthy.

1) First of all, before you talk about the ideas of a man, you should understand them, and not project what you think they’re saying.

2) Libertarians — and Dr. Paul in particular — don’t think the actions of government is the actions of “America”. This is just nonsensical analysis. So, if you want to know what Ron Paul is saying, you should first study “methodological individualism”. Then, you’ll see that your interpretation of him is absurd.

3) Ron Paul doesn’t blame “America” for 9/11. He blamed Osama bin Laden. BUT — and this is the BIG but, that so called “conservatives” never consider — he looks at the big picture. When anyone does something, what is the first question you should ask? It’s this: “why did this person do this?”. And bin Laden’s motivation — as explained by Michael Scheuer, former head of the “bin Laden unit” of the CIA — was foreign occupation on “sacred land”. That’s why he fought USSR (when americans said he was a freedom fighter, in the late 1970s); and that’s why he attacked America.

Hence, Ron Paul never said that the American government was responsible for 9/11 (even though this sentence should be better investigated), but that the US foreign policy — and, again, this is not “America”, vide (2) — created the conditions for the attack.

Therefore, as Ron Paul has long insisted, when someone makes a policy decision, one must consider the consequences of this decision, even if its an undesirable consequence (which is a partial definition of “blowback”.

4) This “conservative” — it isn’t conservative at all — worship of the military is just disgusting. A lot of Americans tend to think that whatever the military does is good and fine and beautiful. Chris Kyle BRAGGED about killing over 150 people — this is the definition of a psychopath. He — and a lot of “conservatives” — didn’t look those people he killed as people; they were simply the “enemies”, that unpersonal thing. Yes, sometimes killing is necessary; yes, sometimes a soldiers has to kill hundreds of people. But, NO, anyone should brag about killing anyone. To kill a human beign is terrible, even if the human being that was killed was himself terrible.

Anyway, this is what I think of Chris Kyle, not what Dr. Paul thinks. He’s quotation of the Bible — yes, Ron Paul was quoting the Bible, that terrible book! — was done to emphasize the unintended consequences of war.

So, you’re wrong on both ways: you didn’t understand Ron Paul — what a surprise! — and you have this satanic set of values, in which a psychopath is considered a hero…

5) Let me clarify what I mean by “satanic set of values”. Everytime anyone puts someone or something — like the US government — as good by the definition, this someone is being satanic. God is Good; everything else is good only insofar as it abides to God’s will. Everyone of us is a sinner; everyone of us is evil in a way or another. Satan’s plan was to convince human beigns that they would be like gods — that is to say, that they would be the measure of good and evil.

That’s what “conservatives” today think of the USA. America is Good, and everyone who stands on its way is bad and should be eliminated. That’s the definition of the Bush doctrine! And it’s satanic to the core.

When the American government kills half a million CHILDREN in Iraq in the early 1990’s, as admitted by Madeleine Albright, your government is NOT good; it’s PURE EVIL. (And, look, I’m not saying that “America” is evil, because it’s NOT “America” who acted in this way, it was the American government — this is very important to understante, you’re not your government!)

When Americans get terrifyed by terrorism, they’re right. Terrorism is despicable. But, when you fail to see that the American government does the same to many more people around the world, you’re treating other peolpe as nothing. Try, for once, to imagine how it’d be like to live in a country where American jets are flying with bombs above your head everyday for years; try to imagine how it’d be like to live in a city that’s bombed every week.

Then you’d understand what those people that you despise live through for years now. Then you’ll see that the singular event of 9/11, though absolutely terrible, is just a fraction of what those people suffer. Then you will understand their reasons — and, note, that’s not the same as a justification…

Anonymous

Bernardo, first of all, I DO understand Ron Paul. I understand him and I understand every one of his zombie followers. That psycho babble you just spewed there is barely understandable and aptly demonstrates the libertarian mind. You defend Ron Paul, then claim that he was just quoting the Bible (nope), then cement the meaning of exactly what he said with a few more attacks on both the military and Chris Kyle. And, apparently, “America” isn’t its’ government…WHAT?!! Anyone who has to spend that much time trying to cook up a story and explain what their “hero” is saying probably should be asking the same questions of the guy since you’ve just offered the worst, most nonsensical analysis of Ron Paul’s interpretation of American foreign policy that I’ve ever read and that’s saying something when it comes to you people. You actually believe that splitting hairs on how he says something and then turning around and restating it, then claiming that the two are not the same…doesn’t make it so. It just makes you look foolish and misinformed. And are you seriously trying to intimate that conservatives think the Bible is a terrible book and only libertarians believe in it? And anyone who believes different from you and your god-king, Ron Paul, is satanic? If believing in God, and believing in the men and women who make up our military (yes, I was one as well which, I know, to libertarians-makes me satanic) is satanic to you, then I’ll embrace that satanic creed any day. Your characterization of anyone who supports the military as mindless and coldly embracing murder of anyone who stands in our way paints the picture very clearly. Ron Paul, you, and all of his rabidly mindless followers have clearly painted the picture for me as to why embracing liberalism, as unthinkable and horrific as that seems to me, would be far preferable to the cowardly, hateful, despicable and evil libertarian agenda of condemnation and hatred of this great nation. You don’t support the constitution, you don’t believe in anything, you only know what you DON’T believe in. Fine. By the way, keep making up as many numbers as you possibly can. In fact, why don’t you just start saying that American troops went house-to-house in the first Gulf war, ordering all the women and children into the village squares and shooting them where they stood. The story might be more believable then. We didn’t even kill that many soldiers, but I know how it works with the libertarian agenda. If you can’t find the stats, make ’em up! In fact, you guys ought to just move to an island somewhere so that you don’t have to have any military anymore, where you could live in peace and the world would just treat you well because you weren’t treading on anyone’s toes, so they would never attack or commit crimes or acts of terror. After all, if we just gave up the military, the rest of the world would act appropriately because the United States wouldn’t be causing problems anymore. That’s a great fairytale story for you. Your world is no fairytale, though, Bernardo….it’s a nightmare-and so are you.

http://www.facebook.com/daniel.allen.585 Dan Allen

Audit the FED was a very good plan, we just couldn’t get our alias(republicans) to help us make it a more main stream idea. So now we will not help you in return. Are you republicans seeing how this works, we will not bow to your give free money as long as it’s just to farmers and the like, nor will yo bow to our 100% capitalist ideals. No CRP’s, no freecombines, no guaranteed loans for minorities, and no money for isreal, or to put a loyal regime in charge in Egypt or elsewhere. Americans mind their our, and kick the shit out of meddlers. Close the border, and lock up (illegals), because they are illegal.

Anonymous

you don’t have to win jack, the socialist party barely won any elections, but their mere presence and marginal success was enough to get labor reforms etc that we take for granted now.
Ross Perot didn’t win, but his popularity had a large influence on 1990s policy.

libertarians are a small small group compaired to republicans and democrats, you act like they have all the power in the world, like we have a libertarian senate, or a libertarian president, or libertarian anything..

honestly, id rather have a parrty like libertarians where the ideals are right, even if the action is hindered by lack of resources….

especially over a group that is established with power and numbers, but still cant do anything except make the wrong decisions and have a bunch of nutcases that get 100% of their info from fox or msnbc mainstream TV and ACTUALLY feel smart about themselves…

Doris C

If you are really asking then Ron Paul brought up the reserve. all the others have been talked about by both parties for years.Everyone and his brother have been talking about what they call entitlements for years, its just election talk never comes to anything ever. Anyway Social security should not be considered as such as it was always paid into by employers and employees and it always worked fine until Johnson put the money into the general fund.

Anonymous

Well, the kids on this panel did not help your case….I didn’t hear even one bring up the bigger issues.

http://www.facebook.com/joyce.romano.524 Joyce Romano

They need to have more grownups involved. A bunch of college kids is hardly the pulse of the American people. It’s great that they aren’t leftists…but they really ONLY seem concerned about social issues.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Perry-Wall/100002811879244 Perry Wall

a persons brain isn’t fully developed until you are 25 .thats what the voting age should be .lol

Anonymous

I would rather see a small history quiz at the begining of the ballot with easy questions; Who was the first president: A. George Washington B. Abraham Lincoln C. Barack Obama. 2 or 3 of these questions that if you get them wrong, your ballot is summarily rejected. That would solve the problem.

Anonymous

the social issues are the ones easiest to get your head around, to defend positions (libertarian or not) on a lot of the other stuff requires a degree of knowledge about economics most people don’t have.

they were repyling to direct points that ann coulter brought up so ann coulter was the one controlling the conversation… and honsetly, they let 3 people ask questions and ann dodged every single question…..

grownups?? oh you mean those people that got the youth of today in the pickle its in?? where people leave their teenage years and enter bondage?? oh you mean those same lazy grownups that cant raise their kids properly?? or sit in front of the tube all day absorbing FALSE news??

the grownups had their chances, and proved to be ineffective, on top of that they are still making wrong decisions to this day… no i think its time for grownups to do what they do best,

“WELL”, that’s maybe true in some spotlighted circles. Many of us are CONSERVATIVE/Libertarian. WE, even in the 70’s have worked + pushed the truths of these mindsets into the public arena[as allowed] + much more. WE grew up on moral rectitude, respect for parental ‘guardrails’-w/disipline, Church, Sunday school, Youth Fellowship, Bible studies, National Review morphing into the Washington Times. Influenced by the Faith, economics + politics of the likes of Billy Graham, William F. Buckley, Milton Friedman, Hayek, Goldwater, Reagan, John T. Flynn + many others. Learning world history + especially American history + the Founding ideology[NOT excepting errors as causation for anti- Americanism]. WE championed Reagan in 75 + onward! It was our churches that the U.S. military approached across the nation,w/nowhere else to turn. Warning ‘ WE the PEOPLE’ of the impending danger of a 2nd term for “the peanut farmer” + the imminent, unstoppable the Soviet conventional war machines invasion plan from the ‘Iron Curtain’. Our military capabilities were abismally incapable of stopping them; until Reagan put short range nuclear missiles in West Germany; CHECKMATE!!! RR ran’em hard + put’em away wet…beginning the return of respect for OUR military{here+everywhere,after ‘bugout’ in Vietnam}. Then Star Wars, Space Shuttle, stealth tech, computer science, Abrams, + many superior conventional weaponry put us into a super- super power. “Peace Thru-Strength” broke the USSR military threat! I can only assume Libertarians voted for him…but know the Conservatives championed Reagan + the movement, as the ONLY alternative to the 100-yr march of Liberalism.

Davidt

Agreed but its not just Fox and no its Republicans for human/civil rights and you are just a ” social democrat” . You also give nothing to “Democrats” and your just a gnat lying through your teeth. Sorry, but who are the ” great” Leaders besides the racist,hillbilly,Antisemetic Dr. Dad with his newsletters you deny? Humm.. Must be all those 2 Bills he wrote/passed over decades? What you really are is lying,cheating,cowards saying anything for ” market share”. Just more drugged out delusions of granduer being ” the only/chosen one that did anything”. No, you don’t make the strategic thinking Hot List and your tactics suck.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Sam-Fox/100002550791413 Sam Fox

Davidt, I’ll be kind. Your post is pile of disingenuous falsehoods at best.

Antisemitic? Look up

Jews For Ron Paul

Jewish Economists Say End Foreign Aid

I see you mentioned the news letters, proving that you don’t do much research. At YouTube look for 2 videos under

Reality Check: The Story Behind The Ron Paul Newsletters

Then look up

Black Support For Ron Paul

Since Ron was one member among many in Congress, it would be rather difficult for him to pass any bills by himself. Guess you forgot to note the many CINO-RINO big govt establishment type R’s who opposed Dr. Paul at almost every turn.

When public pressure got to Congress & Ron’s Audit The Fed Bill came up, it was heavily watered down by R progressive operatives. If Ron was unable to do much while in Congress, you should look at the establishment R’s who opposed Ron, not make yourself look like an uneducated buffoon by blaming the one man who usually stood alone in his call for a return to the Constitution.

Ron Paul has for some 30+ years trying to get Congress to get back to the Constitution. For that he gets knocked by hacks like you. Thanks a lot for helping the big govt establishment collective stay in UN-Constitutional power.

People like to say we supporters of Ron are blind, ignorant or what ever.

We are not. We DO recognize the wisdom of his message, which is basically, the USA needs to shrink the fed govt back to the size allowed by our founding documents. It’s not about Dr. Paul the man per se. It’s about his ideals.

Ron just happened to be about the ONLY member of Congress with a return to the Constitution platform. His message is STILL alive & well. Now we just need a different vehicle to bring it through.

Judge Napolitano, Sheriff Mack & Chuck Baldwin are 3 names that come readily to my mind because they champion the US Constitution. But since the R establishment doesn’t control them, easy to manipulate Media Matters Homer Simpson fools like you will trash them the way they did that other champion of the Constitution, Ron Paul.

SamFox

jen

Beck lies – Libertarians, espec Stossel, did not point out that infact libertarians number over 1%. It is infact at least 10%. And those that consider themselves cons/libertarian is far more. He is lying in order to make fun of the fact that he is trying to co-opt or do something political with libertarians. Whyelse would people devote so much time to libertarians like this if they weren’t influential?
Most repub conservatives are unappreciative people, so they will never be grateful or thank those that risked a lot to steer them from the path of destruction. I don’t sense Jesus too much at play in their lives.

They are only grateful to the evil for putting on a good show and serving them as obedient slaves.

http://twitter.com/jstuartharris J Stuart Harris

Ann has totally missed the point. The issue is not whether or not drugs should be legal, this issue is where the laws should be.

The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate drugs of any kind, these laws belong firmly with the States. As long as we allow the argument to be over drugs instead of jurisdiction, we will continue to allow the Federal government to expand without limit at the expense of our liberties.

Anonymous

True enough, in principle. But. do you know any chest-thumping Libertarians who don’t oppose STATE control of the drug scene?

http://twitter.com/jstuartharris J Stuart Harris

It doesn’t matter what their position is. If the majority of people in a State want legal weed, they can set it up that way. Nevada has legal prostitution, legal gambling and sells hard liquor in grocery stores. Utah, just next door, prohibits all of those. If you want those things, you live in Nevada, if you don’t, you live somewhere else. I don’t live in CA or NY because I disagree with their gun control laws. I would live in TX, WY, FL etc for exactly that reason. Limiting the powers given to the Federal government was by design and is extremely important in protecting Liberty. The unhindered movement of people between States is just as important because it puts pressure on States that inhibits tyranny.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/ Tuci78

…do you know any chest-thumping Libertarians who don’t oppose STATE control of the drug scene?

Can you explain why any professional popularity contest winner – i.e., politician – or government-employed mediocrity (a.k.a. bureaucrat) should be empowered with the force of law to tell you what substances you should be allowed to take into your own personal body?

Do you particularly like this kind of Bloombergian nanny-state attitude on the part of the self-anointed governing class? Y’know, the premise that you and I are really nothing much more than cattle on a feed lot that they’re getting into top condition for slaughter.

Whether it’s at the federal, state, or local level, the motive behind this “We know what’s best for you!” attitude is so inescapably arrogant and tyrannical and hostile to individual human rights that the question you really ought to be asking is why you aren’t among these “chest-thumping Libertarians” on this issue, too.

The “War on (Some) Drugs” is political progressivism in its purest, most thoroughly undiluted form, and it’s no surprise that it has corrupted our police, enriched the most violent criminals, and generally wrecked the lives of millions in our republic.

The costs are horrendous, the benefits nil, and the excuses for continuing it – at any level – are contemptible.

Anonymous

See the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/ Tuci78

See the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause.

See the collected Federalist papers and – more importantly – the collected anti- Federalist critiques of Hamilton’s conspiracy to abrogate the Articles of Confederation during the ratification debates.

To paraphrase Franklin, we have a republic only as long as we can keep it.

Letting the government thugs use “the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause” as cover for their violations of individual human rights is either an insanity or a massive stupidity.

To which cause do we attribute your citation thereof?

jen

Yes and Stossel missed bringing up the point as well. He can’t put together an argument to save his life – that is problem with such anarchist libertarians. Rand on the other hand, as a moderate libertarian, is articulate and can put together arguments. Though I wish he had been more aggressive with Hillary.

BS61

I’m okay with his Hillary confrontation – he was only one of 3 to be critical. And he got enormous amounts of interviews after where he could further explain. In one he said that Hillary had the same amount of guards as the Paris consulate although there is no danger there.

Your idea that “moderate libertarians” are articulate, and “anarchist libertarians” (the more usual term is “anarchocapitalists”, by the way) cannot make a syllogism is just nonsensical.

In fact, the anarchocapitalists are the ones whose doctrine is not self-contradictory. Its founded on the Non Agression Principle — which means: no one can initiate agression to property rights or person, unless it’s in self-defense. And, from this Principle, they conclude that the State is FOUNDED on the violation of this Principle. Hence, if you accept the principle — as “moderate libertarians” usually do –, the necessary LOGICAL conclusion would be anarchocapitalism.

In other words, the “moderate libertarians” are the ones who cannot follow through the whole chain of reasoning.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Sam-Fox/100002550791413 Sam Fox

J Stuart, very good point!

The War On Some Drugs is now mire dangerous than the drugs. Example: We are seeing an increase in the “OOPS! We got the wrong house again” drug raids where innocents are killed by cops & thousands in Mexico have died as a fruit of the WOSD.

Then there is WOSD excuse for militarizing police agencies. The drug war is really another assault on civil liberties.

The prohibition of cannabis & other formally LEGAL substances gave rise to the WOSD. Cannabis prohibition, by the way, is based on lies, the greed of WR Hurst, & the deceptive, manipulative propaganda of Reefer Madness.

The RF movies were NOT documentaries!

For grins & giggles, look up, copy & paste to a search,

Rx Drugs Kill More Than Prohibited Substances

If public safety was truly the issue, there would be a drive to prohibit a LOT of Rx killer junk. LEGAL dos NOT default to safe! Just watch the commercials, paying attention to the side affects of Rx drugs.

No school shooter that I have heard of was or had been on cannabis. Most all of them were or had been on Rx script drugs.

Look up, again you can copy & paste the term,

The US Founders Indian Hemp

Thanks.

SamFox

Doris C

Yes for sure your right, but make amends ? make amends to who?

http://www.facebook.com/fred.freshwater Fred Freshwater

I can’t express how much I agree with your sentiments … right on!

Anonymous

Ann the Man isn’t a deep thinker, she’s a shock jock. Once, I made the mistake of watching her on TV. I had just had some minor surgery and was taking prescription pain meds and made the mistake of mixing them with a big red wine. (DO NOT do this).

You know how Ann Coulter has that giant Adam’s apple on her neckfront? For some reason, the painkillers and wine caused a weird hallucination, and I thought that Ann’s Adam’s apple was a giant green horse turd. As she spoke, the green wet gooey plops of turd kept rising from her Adam’s apple and falling out all over the place.

Anyway, I puked from the sight of it. Ever since, I can’t see Ann Coulter without thinking of giant green wet gooey horseturds in her throat where her Adam’s apple is.

Anonymous

Well, you just made made the anti-Libertarians case. Your rant just illustrated why the general impression of Libertarians is that their number one issue is to make being out of your head on drugs and liquor a normal state.

Pamela Peltonen

I agree with what she is saying but disagree with the way she says it. She has no morals and she does not represent me. Besides, where was Ann Coulter during the election? Playing party politics like she has always done.

greywolfrs

You couldn’t be more wrong. Ann is only name calling. Libertarians are the only ones who have been bringing up to the biggest problem this country faces, the Federal Reserve. Libertarians are the ones who have been working to get rid of entitlements, not just talking about reform.

You may be right that we need people who will hold to their principles, but as we Libertarians do that and refuse to vote for a Republican establishment lackey, like Romney, we called every name in the book. How exactly is that helping. It seems to be that Republicans are being good drones and fed the line of ABO, then vote how the establishment wants them to, how is that holding to one’s principles?

The problem with “cleaning house” is who are you going to vote for to replace them? Are you talking about Karl Rove’s plan to double down and back the same establishment lackeys? That may be all you get…

Pamela Peltonen

Ann Coulter is right, but I sure don’t appreciate her foul mouth.

Anonymous

I’ve always respected men like Coulter.

http://www.facebook.com/bobby.clayson Bobby Clayson

That is such horseshit. We have not been avoiding the economic issues. Mainstream Libertarian outlets are CONSTANTLY talking about economic freedom. Anne Coulter is DEAD wrong.

Anonymous

The GOP has not produced one candidate for president that was a constitutionalist or an America first conservative since Reagan! Both Bushes were Totalitarian Statist/Crony Corporatist no different than the current war criminal in the WH!
I have witnessed the Elite Establishment that owns the GOP repel the Reagan revolution, 94 Congressional revolution, and they have usurped and infiltrated the Tea Party movement to were they are neutered and have no real influence! The Base, Tea Partiers, and Libertarians need to abandon the GOP it has never been your Party you don’t own it and you will never own it!

Anonymous

Real Libertarians hate you clowns.

http://youtu.be/R7MC2wu49Cw Sam Fisher

You being a voice for Libertarians is like Hitler being a voice for the Jews.

http://twitter.com/whiteli49939171 whitelion

My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,
JUMP30.ℂℴℳ

Anonymous

There are about 10+ different subsets or shades libertarians now. Old school Libertarians don’t agree with Christian Libertarians which is where Beck is.

As for Ann Caulter she is in her own class of media hungry, vilifying foulness, I wish she would go away.

I’m still waiting for the Common sense Party to emerge.

jen

Good you bring up shades of libertarians. There are 2 main types of libertarians. One is moderate libertarians – that is Rand Paul and Penn Jillette, Jim Rogers, and Gary Johnson. Unfortunately, anarchist leftist libertarians like Stossel, RP Republicans are the ones that get all the media attention as if libertarian is only what Ron Paul’s supporters say.

I am sure Beck knows it, and if he was interested in becoming libertarian, he would know by now that distinguishment and relay that to the public.

Although the anarchsits are great for thought, are good natured people, and can get conversations going, they also at the same time give libertarian principles a bad name. And, anarchists don’t have plans while moderate libertarians believe in some rules/regs that are not overreaching and not designed form the ghetgo to implode like how repubs/dems design all of their policies.

Draxx

jen, You reminded me of a cliche, “There are two kinds of people. Those with Problems, and Those with Solutions…” We are all plagued with problems, simply because they are a fact of life! What we need are real people with Real Solutions that bring us back to the way America is Supposed to Be!!! The last thing we need are more false prophets like Obummer who think they have solutions but only add to the problems and compound them too…

jen

You are comparing apples to oranges. You don’t seem to be looking solutions or are too confused or don’t want to sort out the political chaos now and just want someone to come up with answers that appease you now, or something.

But I find your commend bizarre, perhaps that you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. At this point in time, there are 2 main branches of libertarianism. Beck is more a temporary third, and then I expect he will retreat back into where he came from – gop estab. Having 2 or 4 or 6 schools of thoughtis not the point.
The point is that people should know what libertarian is before deciding to go with it or against it.

Draxx

jen, I am always posting my thoughts on solutions to various topics, but I am also well aware that I do not know everything and because of that other people need to offer solutions to those subjects I cannot. My point was many people complain but not offer solutions. If you do not believe that I offer some solutions then ask other commentors, please.

I understand your comments as it pretains to BandWagon Politics, as opposed to steady, dedicated, old style/traditional politics (i.e.; Once a Replubican always a Republican).

Yes, you are very correct in stating that people need to understand definitions/directions of a topic before they jump in head first and blindly…

Oh, BTW I like debating and hate arguing in a manner that is non-productive.

BS61

I was a life long Chicago Dem, who GB woke up. I believe people can see the light, but they have to be able to point to what changed them – not just a desire to get elected.

BS61

Jen, Beck has always identified himself as a Libertarian that probably makes Libertarians cringe. Because he reads the history of Islam and out country and sees the danger – putting him at odds with most libertarians.

Beck can identify himself with whatever WORD he wants. He’s not a libertarian, in an objective sense of the world. If he wants to call himself a marxist, he can. But, in the same way, that doesn’t mean he’s a marxist, just because he calls himself a marxist.

The fact that he believes in legitimacy of pre-emptive war is enough to say he’s not a libertarian, because it violates the Non Agression Principle. Period.

BS61

Yes I agree. I always test out Libertarian in the quizzes. However, I don’t fit that since I’ve come to learn that Islam has always been a problem for us historically. I think that like Thomas Jefferson had to go to war against the muslim pirates to protect our citizens who were being kidnapped and held for ransom.

Well, you should take your own advice, and learn about libertarianism.

1) Ron Paul is not an anarchocapitalist (anarchist libertarianism), contrary to what you say. Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, so he believes in the necessity of the existence of government.

2) Anarcho-capitalism is not leftist. This is just ignorance: anarchocapitalism is a consequence of the idea that there is NO moral relativism. (For instance, statist libertarians and conservatives are necessarily moral relativists, as can be easily shown.)

Mr. Libertarian, the greatest anarcho-capitalist thinker, Murray N. Rothbard, came from the Old Right, but he just thought (correctly, by the way) that they held the right principles, but didn’t have enough logical consisntency to apply it in general, including the government.

So, anarcho-capitalism is the Old Right mentallity applied with logical consistency.

3) Finally, you shouldn’t consider politicians or media people as ultimate representatives of a political philosophy. Penn Jillete, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Mike Levin et al. are not the representatives of classical liberalism, anarcho-capitalism, neonconservatism etc. (Amongst these, of course, Ron Paul is what comes closer, because one can really consider an intellectual, but not the rest of them.)

If you want to understand a political philosophy, then you must read political philosophers. It’s more difficult, of course, but that’s how it must be done. If want to understand libertarianism, you must read Rothbard, Gustave de Mollinari, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, David Friedman (utilitarian anarcho-capitalism) and others; if you want to understand classical liberalism (which you call “moderate libertarianism”), you should read Ludwig von Mises, Hayek, Milton Friedman (David’s father), Locke, Acton, Tocqueville and others.

http://youtu.be/R7MC2wu49Cw Sam Fisher

I have to say I agree with your statement. I think you are 100% right.

Ben Stokes

Stossil is not a leftist. He is about liberty. The government should be limited by the constitution. I’m a very conservative libertarian. Most people who consider themselves conservatives are actually quite fond of big government and Statism.

jen

Within the libertarian spectrum, Stossel is on edge or extreme end of that spectrum of the left.

BS61

How do you see mild-mannered Stossel as an anarchist? I saw real Anarchist here in AZ protesting the immigration bill and also in the Occupied Unmasked documentary. They want to destroy property and our country – none of those are Stossel.

Anonymous

“Christian Libertarians”. What a crock.

http://youtu.be/R7MC2wu49Cw Sam Fisher

Liberal Libertarians what a bold face lie.

Joshua Boschke

Beck isn’t anywhere close to being a libertarian.

jen

He has at least half a foot in. Problem is his freaky isolated communities that he is building to reeducate people. And his flip flopping. Like when he used to like Christie and praise Romney and then call Newt falsely ‘evil’.

BS61

Beck never loved Romney. He loved Christie until Christie proved to be not conservative.

He called out Newt for being the big government guy that he is – he had solutions to everything – all involving govt.

Anonymous

Because he does not agree with Ron Paul on everything?

http://twitter.com/NacheThunder Ryan Nace

The Rent Is Too Damn High Party?

Ben Stokes

Glen Beck is not a Christian. He is a Mormon. There is a huge difference. The Mormons are a cult that tries to imitate Christianity, but their theology is totally different. I’m not a Coulter fan at all. I’m a conservative Christian libertarian as in, “let’s go back to the constitution”.

Anonymous

You are also the problem. I’m not a Mormon or probably a “christian” by your standards. The problem is people like you that need to be “better” and “more” of something while forgetting the basic tenants of whatever belief system you have. I am not be a perfect Christian but I do know that Christ didn’t go around saying “those people aren’t Christians because thay don’t follow me exactly”. I’ve known plenty of good and bad Mormons and Christians – even horrible and nasty “Born Agains”. Being a member of a faith doesn’t give you the power to judge the quality of others – I think Christ said something like “lead by example with every thing in your life”. You have to set aside your petty judgments and look at what Beck is saying – all of us, if we believe in freedom and liberty, whether we are Christian, Jew, Mormon, Lutheran, Taoist, Agnostic or athiest had better fight for what we believe in or the Left will destroy us all.

Anonymous

Jesus said I am the way the Truth and the Life no man comes to the father but by me. He also said that he did not come as a uniter but as a divider. I don’t think Ben meant to be condescending, and just because we may not agree on theology does not mean we are not on the same page when it comes to liberty and restoring our Constitution.

Anonymous

By the way, I admire Beck, but a Christian he is not.

http://www.facebook.com/Byakhee Stuart Anderson

Right on, Ann! She nailed the very reasons I cannot call myself a Libertarian. They always end up on the drug issue and the marriage issue when they are so insignificant in the overall scheme of things that it makes me think most “Libertarians” don’t actually understand what Libertarianism is.

Anonymous

And what exactly is that? Forcing women to bear the child of their rapists? Demanding that the 10 Commandments adorn the court houses? Blowing trillions on undeclared wars in Iraq? You guys wouldn’t know Libertarianism if it walked up and slapped you on the ass with a banjo.

http://youtu.be/R7MC2wu49Cw Sam Fisher

Forcing women to bear the child of their rapists? Nah that is a liberal thing because you will
not let Collage women protect themselves with guns. Demanding that the 10
Commandments adorn the court houses? When you liberals are demanding that we
worship Obama and government as gods. Can anyone say hypocrisy? By the way
liberalism is not Libertarianism because people like you are for more control
and voted for Obama.

So you conclude that, because someone is against the Republican Party orders, he must be a Democrat Obama lover?

Man, you are a genius!

http://youtu.be/R7MC2wu49Cw Sam Fisher

No just the idiots that think Obama is lord and savior of the universe. If you read my comments I don’t like the GOP much at all.

Anonymous

the drug and marriage issues are just being consistent by applying maximum freedom ideaology to social issues.

Anonymous

When you’re a republican who doesn’t have the guts to call yourself a republican, you adopt the label of Libertarian, or “conservative” or “independent” or whatever the hot new term this week is…
It won’t matter what mask they try to hide behind, they’re all going down.

http://youtu.be/R7MC2wu49Cw Sam Fisher

She was right with a few of Libertarians but as someone pointed out there are too different classes and it is always the crazy Libertarians that get media attention while they may have some good points they don’t speak for everyone. She is wrong painting them all like that. Both sides can still stand together as one for the fight of freedom.

Anonymous

Ann Coulter, RINO and uber-supporter of Progressives like Chris Christy and Mitt Romney. Yeah, she has no room to disparage Libertarians and our belief in individual liberty and individual responsibility.

http://twitter.com/ingodwetrust_ Diann Stephens

Best to never LABEL yourself. Why do we have to group ourselves with any group. What is wrong with individualism?

http://twitter.com/ingodwetrust_ Diann Stephens

Best to never LABEL yourself. Why do we have to group ourselves with any group. What is wrong with individualism?

Very disappointed in Ann. I was hoping she could at least give a straight answer to the questions she was asked. Instead I found her answers to be evasive and non-responsive.

http://twitter.com/ingodwetrust_ Diann Stephens

We are all individuals….we may have some ideas that coincide with one group or another. Ex. I am a Christian but I know many Christians that are not at all like me. Why do you think there are so many religious sects? Because we are all different. STOP LABELING PEOPLE!

http://twitter.com/jstuartharris J Stuart Harris

This issue is NOT whether or not drugs should be legal – the issue is where should the laws be!!

There is NO authority in the Constitution to allow the Federal Government to regulate drugs of any kind. Notice how this is NEVER discussed. Regulation of drugs is NOT a Federal issue, it is a State issue.

If you believe in the Constitution and you believe drugs should be illegal, then you must oppose drug laws at the Federal level and support them at the state level.

This was by design. By pushing it to the State level, it prevented the Federal government from getting too big and powerful. It allowed people to leave a State that became oppressive. This is what showed up in the last census – people left the more oppressive states in the Northeast and moved to Texas, Arizona and Florida.

Those who argue for regulation of drugs at the Federal level do not understand or believe in the Constitutional government set up by the founders. These laws belong firmly with the States.

http://www.facebook.com/blang13 Bob Lang

The interstate commerce clause, while overused at times, would certainly seem to apply to the feds being able to make laws about drugs. Unless of course they are completely manufactured and distributed inside a single state. The fact is, that even the founding fathers were at a disagreement over how strong the central government should be. Any insistence that they were uniformly and clearly opposed to strong central government is just… wrong. By and large they distrusted the populace to be able to rule themselves wisely and efficiently. The “tyranny of the majority.”

So, while I certainly agree that the “war on drugs” has been as abject a failure as the war on poverty, Federal Law certainly has the constitutional muster to be involved in drugs.

Anonymous

Unfortunately I think that Ann is mostly correct in her observations. I live in the real world where there are no straw men. If we were a country that truly believed in personal responsibility then I could care less what people put into their bodies. I would not have to pay for their folly and they would rightfully suffer the consequence of their actions, but this is the real world where billions of dollars are spent to mitigate any suffering these fools might incur. And the really sinister part of this is they reward these people by having the government put a gun to my head and stealing my property. When this Marxist in the White House is done, we will have no freedom left.

Anonymous

you pay more to jail these people then it would cost to treat them medically

http://www.facebook.com/people/Scott-Todd/1424651317 Scott Todd

Your assumption that medical care would cure it is patently false. Programs like Teen Challenge are far more effective than the much vaunted Hazelden or Betty Ford Treatment Center.

Dylan Canterbury

I’m sorry, but Glenn, Pat and Stu should know better than this. Speaking as a libertarian who interacts with a number of people from all political persuasions, I’m neither reluctant nor afraid to speak with others in a calm and civilized manner in an open forum. What I (and all of the libertarians I know) don’t care for is how we are constantly marginalized by people on both the right and the left.

It seems to me that a lot of people in the comments (and even Glenn, Pat and Stu) don’t quite understand what libertarianism is all about. For example, I can’t stand it when people act like libertarians are involved in the Occupy movement. Libertarians most certainly aren’t in favor of the whole “free stuff from the government” thing that is a key tenet of most Occupy participants. We see them for the spoiled, greedy, economically illiterate collegiate burnouts that they are. and although we do agree with them on the basic idea that government and business shouldn’t mix, we don’t agree with them on how to go about solving that problem.

Libertarianism is all about allowing as much freedom to individuals as possible, all the while acknowledging that some government is necessary. Does this mean we want to end a lengthy, expensive and ultimately unsuccessful war on drugs? Yes. Does it mean we don’t believe that a governing body has the right to dictate who can and cannot get married? Yes. But it also means we’re in favor of lower taxes, less regulation, and greater freedom of speech. I’m sure we can all at least agree these final three things are all worthwhile endeavors.

As for Ann Coulter, her brand of political rabble rousing does a tremendous disservice to her fellow conservatives (Beck, Limbaugh, Krauthammer etc…) who are capable of speaking their views in a calm, collected and logical fashion as opposed to going into full-fledged attack dog mode.

Anonymous

“We see them for the spoiled, greedy, economically illiterate collegiate burnouts that they are.”

once again… you would see that their message is one of freedom if you could just take off your ideological blinders. but then again, i know you will claim that you have none and exist on a plane of pure reason, all libertarians do.

Dylan Canterbury

And you are not also wearing ideological blinders? Comfort does not equal freedom, especially when it involves taking away someone else’s comfort AND freedom by force in order to provide it.

Anonymous

i did not advocate for comfort, please try again. thanks for playing.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Scott-Todd/1424651317 Scott Todd

He was referring to the Occupy people in that statement.

Anonymous

Libertarians do nothing but point out the tough issues and promote maximum freedom. Its the neo cons who want to establish capitalistic rule over other nations for profit. Its all profit driven and so is Beck. This is a country, not some company. And Ill take on anyone even that whore ann coulter about the “tough issues” Which when I pin her in the corner she will change the subject just like any of the other Bullshit artists you people listen to. They get rich feeding you bullshit.

Vae Victis

Both Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck need to be called out.

Ann first said that if we nominated Mitt Romney we would lose the presidential election. Then after her heart was broken by RINO Chris Christie’s refusal to run, she immediately changed her position and said RINO Romney was the only one who could win. This was well before the first vote was cast in the GOP Primary. Then if that wasn’t bad enough, she went on to defend Romney Care and lie about how wonderful Romney’s socialized medicine plan really is. The evidence speaks to the contrary.

Both her and Beck believe Rubio is eligible to be President and mock the “Birthers” who want the Constitution of the United States obeyed. Rubio’s parents did NOT become U.S. Citizens until FOUR YEARS after Marco was born which makes him a Citizen but not a natural born Citizen.

The only reason Obama has gotten away so far with his fraudulent candidacy is because of the GOP’s complicity of silence with people like Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter mocking anyone who dares bring the subject up. Has everyone forgotten how Beck treated Sheriff Joe Arpaio for investigating Obama’s eligibility and ignored his findings?

They are both guilty of what they are accusing others of doing, avoiding tough issues and playing politics. Does their hypocrisy know no bounds?

Anonymous

ahh… you are so very close to realizing that the GOP has owners, and you are not one of them. they will continue to nominate pro-corporate candidates no matter how loud you yell and scream.

Devin_the_Dumbass

Apparently RR was the only one who could have won, unfortunately the strongest horse wasn’t enough.

Your interpretation of “natural born” is no longer the only acceptable definition.

“The only reason Obama has gotten away so far with his fraudulent candidacy..” are you another birther?

“Has everyone forgotten how Beck treated Sheriff Joe Arpaio for investigating Obama’s eligibility and ignored his findings?” .. so Beck is not allowed to have his own opinion about select opinions and use the 1st Amendment to voice it. He must match YOURS to be vaild? .. How self serving you are.

They are both guilty of what they are accusing others of doing, avoiding
tough issues and playing politics. (Wow, that sounds like you,,,) Does their hypocrisy know no bounds?
(Does yours?

Vae Victis

Not sure who you are referring to as RR so I cannot comment on that.

It is not my interpretation or yours this Country goes by, it is the definition and interpretation at the time of the writing of the law for the Constitution. At that time, “natural born Citizen” was (and still is) defined as one who is born of parents who are citizens. Please notice “parents” is plural. Do a web search for Vattel’s, “Law of Nations” Book I § 212 if you must.

By claiming that one can change the law by merely changing the definition of a word is ludicrous and illogical, but then so is the rest of your post. Unless there is an Amendment changing the eligibility requirements of the President of the United States in the Constitution, it still stands.

I and others pointing out Beck’s hypocrisy is not a stifling of his First Amendment Right. If we follow your faulty reasoning, you must be trying to take away mine then, shame on you, does your hypocrisy know no bounds?

I suggest you work on your reasoning skills, they are leading you to all the wrong conclusions which makes you look foolish, to put it mildly.

Devin_the_Dumbass

“It is not my interpretation or yours this Country goes by…”

The Constitution does not define the term “natural born” . Your deterination of who or whart establishes the definition of “natural born” is irrelevant regardless of your preference for Vattel’s opinion on the matter.. It is something that is determined by the courts.
.
The common determination by courts hearing Obama eligibility cases (so far)
is that “native born,” or “born in the USA,” is equivalent to “natural
born.” Obama’s acceptance as being eligible for POTUS sets a precedent.

“By claiming that one can change the law by merely changing the definition of a word is ludicrous and illogical,….” I never made that claim, You misinterpreted what I wrote.

Jake Walker, writer for conservative RedState,
affirms that while the Founders were “fond” of Vattel’s “Law of Nations,”
certain of their writings argue that anyone born on U.S. soil is a
natural-born citizen. Now, using quotes that are actually relevant to
the matter, he cites a draft of the Constitution by Alexander Hamilton which stated: …..”No person shall be eligible to the office of President of
the United States unless
…..he be now a citizen of one of the States or
hereafter be born a citizen of the United …..States.” ~ Hamilton.

He notes that the Constitution itself does not define the term “natural
born citizen.” Walker also quotes James Madison, popularly acknowledged
as the “author”
of the Constitution, who indicated in a paper dated May 22,
1789, that birthplace is a more important determinant of allegiance than
parentage:

.

….”It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of
allegiance. Birth however ….derives its force sometimes from place and
sometimes from parentage, but in ….general place is the most certain
criterion; it is what applies in the United States; ….it will therefore be
unnecessary to investigate any other.” ~ Madison
..Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth
Amendment, affirmed in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866, that a
natural-born citizen is:…..“born within the jurisdiction of the United
States of parents not owing allegiance …..to any foreign sovereignty.” ~ Bingham.

The 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides this guideline for determining citizens:
.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside.” .The criteria has been further refined over the years, but this basic tenet of citizenship fits Rubio’s situation. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida. He is, therefore, a natural born
citizen of the United States. Per the Constitution, the citizenship
status of his parents or grandparents or anyone but himself) is
irrelevant.**************As to Beck and the First Amendment “If we follow your faulty reasoning, you must be trying to take away mine then..” What are you referring to? My statement “so Beck is not allowed to have his own opinion …?” Apparently you are having a comprehension problem, Also, where did I say anything that could logically be construed as limiting your rights to the same? No where. Also, where is there hypocrisy in my post? No where.And now, addressing your minor meltdown:”I suggest you work on your reasoning skills, they are leading you to all
the wrong conclusions which makes you look foolish, to put it mildly” …. Your making this baseless contrived statement for the sole purpose of attacking the messenger is rather childish and untrue. If differing opinion rattles you so badly and hurts your feelings perhaps you should find another way to pass your time. The one who looks foolish here is you for your lack of comprehension,. poor critical thinking and erroneous conclusions and accusations. BTW, RR was a typo for MR

Vae Victis

Every post you make further proves your irrationality. No offense but your comments reek of relativism.

“Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.” –American Heritage Dictionary

You can cite Alexander Hamilton’s drafts all you want but those are not the Constitution that was ratified.

As for your Madison quote, he is speaking of citizenship not “natural born Citizen”. There is a difference or it would not have been written under a different term.

“born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.” ~ Bingham.

Interesting quote you used by Ohio Rep. John Bingham. LOL, unfortunately for you it is an argument against your position. In order for parents not to owe allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, they first must be citizens. Again notice the plural word “parents”.

The 14th Amendment addresses “naturalized citizenship” and not “natural born Citizenship”. Is it that hard to understand the difference?

You really should take the time to learn the differences instead of c/p whatever you can find to support your asinine arguments.

Devin_the_Dumbass

There is no irrationality here on my part and throwing in that little ad-hominem remark earns you no points. You feel you must interpret what is written in terms of whether it is relativism or not, giving you some strange perceived point from which to attack. That is irrational on the face of it as discussions go, and irrelevant besides.

You are missing the point, but I will take a moment to humor you.

“You can cite Alexander Hamilton’s drafts all you want but those are not the Constitution that was ratified.” Obviously, but then where better to get a pulse point on the intent than a founder? Some Swiss philosopher who wasn’t there? HaHaHaHa. It doesn’t matter that it is not the final document that was ratified, as the final document did not define the “natural born” citizen.
.
Madison’s view that it’s the PLACE of birth that is important “… it is what applies in the United States, it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.” is pretty clear.
.
Contrary to what you want to believe, Bingham’s quote is NOT an argument against my position. Your opinion that “In order for parents not to owe allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, they first must be citizens.” HaHaHaHa I must have overlooked the article that gives this definition. WHere is this in the Constitution? There was no tenet that declared or defined conditions of allegiance or non-allegiance, and you don’t get to define it to suit your purpose. Notice Bingham was careful NOT to say that parents had to be citizens. Rubio’s parents immigrated legally for permanent residency, were on a citizenship waiting list, had no allegiance to Cuba after leaving Cuba as their intent was to become US citizens. But since you don’t believe that any credence should be given to Hamilton or Madison, why select Bingham? Because you couldn’t understand what he was saying and it looked like it would be advantageous to your argument. LOL.
.
Why you are having a problem understanding that the 14th Amendment does not provide any clarity as to the natural born issue seems to have you confused. Nothing in the Constitution defines it. Why can’t you understand that? It (the 14th) only provides the guideline as to what citizenship is. The courts have determined what the intent was.
.
In any event, you keep ignoring my point that: The common determination by courts hearing Obama eligibility cases (so far) is that “native born,” or “born in the USA,” is equivalent to “natural born.” Obama’s acceptance as being eligible for POTUS sets a precedent. There is no obstacle, (citizenship or birth wise), for Rubio or Jindal to be eligible for POTUS.
.
It does not matter what you or I think the founders meant in the Constitution. It is up to the courts, so get off your high horse and shake off your deluded sense of superiority.
.
There is no need for you to become a birther just because your fave wasn’t chosen to be the Republican candidate. Mine wasn’t either, but I chose to face the situation in terms of reality. Try it.

Vae Victis

You have refuted nothing while showing your ignorance and complete contempt for the rule of law.

Feel free to keep disputing the facts while screaming you are being attacked by ad-hominems, it only proves my point.

Devin_the_Dumbass

You have no point – that is clear. I am not attempting to refute anything, You have presented no “facts” to refute. I am only presenting the situation as it is. Refutation seems to be your failed mission as you have tried but refuted nothing that I have presented. LOL

I brought up the point that the courts have ruled a certain way on POTUS legitimacy and why, yet you make baseless claims that I have contempt of the law? That is rich! The ignorance concerning the issue is yours, not mine. Screaming? really? Proved your point? Apparently you forgot to mention what that point was. LOL I see I have touched a nerve – or two!

I am not interested in continuing this with you. Your grasping is not appealing, and the topic has run out.

Devin_the_Dumbass

“relativism”

“”Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth
or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to
differences in perception and consideration.”

OK, you can take your seat now…LOL

You are that school child who has to say the word and then say the
memorized definition (or maybe in your case cut and paste? LOL )

Anonymous

Excuse me, who is RR?
*
“Your interpretation of “natural born” is no longer the only acceptable definition.”
*
You, who hides behind subterfuge, hidden in a clandestine Avatar are a stain upon what is principled, right and honorable.
*
You forfeit your heritage as an American, our Founders,
and Truth by blaspheming the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of rights- for Anarchy and selfish reasoning.
*
“We
may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land nor, perhaps, the
sun and stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to
consult, and to obey. The chart is the Constitution.” — Daniel Webster*”On
every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when
the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the
debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the
text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was
passed.” –Thomas Jefferson
*
Fortunately, there are ones who fight for what is Right, not what is expedient.
*
These are the differences between ones who are (C)onservative and ones who only parrot (c)onservativism- C.I.N.O.’S, if you haven’t ascertained my meaning.
*
In addition, the question was not of Glenn’s 1st amendment right, but the deliberate suppression of the Constitutional REQUIREMENTS for the lofty position of President and V.P.
*
Do you even understand the reasoning behind the special
requirement to possess this title? Apparently not, for it is obvious you have not read said document. Or deliberately seeking to subvert the actual contextual meaning.
*
Which is it, one who hides behind your Avatar?
*
“Be not intimidated… nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your
liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as
they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy,
chicanery and cowardice.” -John Adams

Mary

Devin_the_Dumbass

” You, who hides behind subterfuge, hidden in a clandestine Avatar are a stain upon what is principled, right and honorable.” … In that case , you must be having a hell of an identity crisis, pot that calls the kettle black. Look at yourself!
..
“You forfeit your heritage …..” Who are you to be so presumptive and declare yourself as judge? I forfeit nothing.
.
“Do you even understand the reasoning behind the special requirement to
possess this title? Apparently not, for it is obvious you have not read
said document. Or deliberately seeking to subvert the actual contextual
meaning” …. I am quite familiar with and very much understand the document. Your snark and attempt at insult is for what purpose? What point have you made? None.
..
Basically, your whole post is a lot of pompous soap box BS and lofty nothing, irrelevant quotes and ill thought out conclusions, misinterpretations, and snarky comments.. You offer nothing but erroneous conclusions and baseless criticism of my knowledge, of which you know nothing, while offering nothing yourself. That is typical of someone who lacks the knowledge and is thus afraid to commit…ergo the fluff and ill used, ill placed quotes and rambling utterances and pretentiousness .. For relevent, substantive use of quotes to bolster an argument, see my post to Vae Victis.
.
If you want to have a discussion, you need to get off the soap box, try to make coherent points and dispense with the ad-hoiminems and pretenses.

SoThere

Libtards are out in full force lately, what do you think they are afraid of?

They have become irrelevant in the scheme of things these days, all they have left is talking points and rhetoric, none of which does them any good. Obama’s a “Lame Duck”.

Devin_the_Dumbass

Liberals and loons (at home with lame ducks”?.. HaHaHaHaHa )
.
.How bad is it that Obama has to use his old campaign troops to raise money and sell time with POTUS …. influence pedaling, what he campaigned against in 2008. Their talking points and rhetoric are an embarrassment to their own party – even a lot of Democrats are turning against the prez for doing this.

SoThere

All Obama knows how to do is campaign and spew doom and gloom and lies.

He’s a typical Libtard with nothing to do anymore.

Devin_the_Dumbass

He and his cronies are pushing the fear angle on this sequester issue. After him publicly blaming the Republicans for it, it was glee time when it was turned back around on him . Fox repeatedly broadcast how it was all his idea. The commies at MSNBC are choking and trying to do damage control for him as much as possible. How clumsy they look!
.

SoThere

YUP, it was all Obama’s brain child and they had a year and a half to do something about it but Obama never came off of the campaign trail. He left the Nation to fend for itself while he campaigned.

The House passed bill after bill last year trying to avert the sequester but Harry Reid (the Mormon) never let them come before the Senate floor for consideration and debate.

The Libtards have been caught in their own subterfuge as the Nation spins out of control.

Your whole post to me was ad-hominem, personally directed to me, instead of the actual debate itself, which is substantiated by The Federalist itself or the Constitution / Declaration of Independence / Bill of Rights.

*

“You forfeit your heritage …” Who are you to be so presumptive and declare yourself as judge? I forfeit nothing.”

*

No, I don’t have an identity crisis-YOU do. You are using another Avatar to further an agenda unrelated to this topic. YOU have abandoned any principles that adhere to our Founding Documents.

*

You, who chooses to wait until this thread is spent-are a coward. You couldn’t address the Constitutional issues on the merits, so you waited until readers were sparse. Whether you realize it or not, you forfeit everything through your ignorance and denial of reality.

*

You haven’t a principled leg to stand on which is exactly why you use Alinsky style tactics in a attempt to marginalize your opponents. SoThere has provided further evidence by supporting your rant by labeling me a “Libtard”. I will take that as a compliment since the Founding Fathers are classified as classical liberals, which now begs the question; what does that make you?

*

In case you don’t understand the Epistemology, or Etymology utilized in my post, might I suggest you bone up on your grasp of our Founders and our history?

*

Every quote I supplied was from whom? Our Founders. Yet you reject them-why?

*

Mary

“The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality.” Dante Alighieri – Inferno

*

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” -Orwell, George.

Vae Victis

Thank you for the assist but I wouldn’t waste your time on her. Besides being completely unhinged and irrational, she is a relativist who you can’t have a intellectually honest debate with because they reject universal truths. I can see by your George Orwell quote you understand the concept of undeniable truths.

You see this quite often, RINO Trolls pretending to be Conservatives. They expose themselves easily enough through their ignorance on all things Constitutional. You can always count on a RINO to sell out your principles every time. I can’t say “their principles” because they never had any, instead, they pretend to share the group’s morals and principles they are trying to assimilate (paramoralism).

Reminds me of a quote from Marcus Cicero on Treason.

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot
survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable,
for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves
among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through
all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the
traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents familiar to his
victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the
baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a
nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the
pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so that it can no longer
resist. A murderer is less to be feared”…….Cicero, 42 B.C.E.

Whether she does this out of blissful ignorance or pure malice it really doesn’t matter, the results will be the same, the loss of our Freedom and Liberty. After trying to point out the facts and her rejection of them, she can no longer claim ignorance as an excuse for she chose to be. Maybe one day she will see the error in her ways but it doesn’t look likely from what she has shown here.

Vae Victis

http://www.facebook.com/Velveeta V4Velveeta

The question of Rubio’s eligibility to run for President has been discussed by the left and settled years ago when he first became a threat. Your argument is moot.

Your habit of insulting people you disagree with shows your lack of social interaction skills.

SoThere

V, this guy knows no bounds when it comes to his ability to post other peoples quotes and turning a discussion into an argument. He has become one of the vanquished many times over. 15 comments and he’s out for a fight.

Vae Victis

Your new sock is less impressive than your last. What you have stated is complete ignorance and irrelevant. The rule of law does not care what deal two corrupt political parties worked out. How can the left challenge Rubio’s eligibility without exposing Obama’s ineligibility? That question alone explains much, no?

I’m so glad to see that you consult the Left for what is constitutional and what is not. Says much about you.

You remind of another ignorant relativist on Disqus, here name is Sandin, any relation?

PS, When you tell me you are done with me and then come back with another sock, it proves my point about your rationality.

http://www.facebook.com/Velveeta V4Velveeta

HUH?

Vae Victis

Yes, we know you are ignorant. It is a settled issue.

http://www.facebook.com/Velveeta V4Velveeta

Are you a he or a she?

Vae Victis

That’s none of your business. You are coming off as a cyber stalker, please do not reply to me anymore with any of your socks.

http://www.facebook.com/Velveeta V4Velveeta

Paranoia seems to be one of your problems. What were your past socks? I bet you had a dozen of em.

SoThere

He’s not worth your time V.

Guest

Are you having a nervous breakdown? There’s meds for paranoia.

SoThere

I know who HE is. I should have gussed when he started to use other people quotes to form his argument, especially when he mentioned “Vattel’s, “Law of Nations”.

He’s a putz, ignore him.

http://www.facebook.com/Velveeta V4Velveeta

Thanks. The “Voluntarism is no different than Marxism” thing seemed pretty far fetched for an argument.

I merely returned to you as you set on me. You came to me, not I to you. Look up the definition of hypocrite and say it as you gaze into your mirror. The majority of your post here is all sanctimonious BS, again. Get off your high horse.
.
“In case you don’t understand the Epistemology, or Etymology …” There is no need for your misplaced condescending attitude. your misguided assumptions and your erroneous conclusions.
.
“Judge not, lest ye be judged.” Matthew 7:1
.
As far as your quotes of the founders, I didn’t reject them per se, I simply found your use of them to be superfluous – fluff. You have yet to present anything worth discussion. Your post to me was intended as a personal attack, nothing more. You have yet to produce anything worth continuing here, so with that I am ending this discussion. I will not dignify your preachy venom with my keyboard.

Anonymous

Devin_the_Dumbass (one who hides behind another ID and alteration of such)

*

“As far as your quotes of the founders, I didn’t reject them per se, I simply found your use of them to be superfluous – fluff. You have yet to present anything worth discussion.”

*

You reject the Truth, that is why you ALWAYS run from debates that are based in our Founders. You KNOW you cannot win for then it exposes you for a person that hasn’t a grasp- a gut deep understanding of our Founding Fathers PRINCIPLES based on HIM.

*

What is the premise of Capitalism?
Right to Life, liberty and property.

*

You deny Life-all others are negated if you deny Life- thus why you fight so hard to undermine others even though they are of the (C)onservative label.

*

Can’t have your cake and eat it too…

Mary

Doris C

I think Ann is right about Libertarians not going after the big issues. And one big thing I had (have still) against Ron Paul is the Occupiers. They are disgusting and most didnt even know why they were out there, so I cannot agree with Beck on Ron Paul.I like Rand who shares his fathers beliefs but doesnt seem to have the same type rabbble around him.I would like libertarians to embrace, abortion issues, dope issues, same sex marriage issues, plus foreign and domestic political issues and become a huge movement that we conservatives can get behind and elect a real president.

Anonymous

“They are disgusting and most didnt even know why they were out there”

no, you just didn’t have the cultural framework to understand what they were saying.

Anonymous

Aaaand Once again the Beck machine filters out my comments! LOL. Blaze on suckers

Anonymous

This is why libertarians do not like you Glenn. You are a political propagandist for the waR MACHINE.
aAAAN ANOTHER COMMENT WILL BE DELETED.

patriot911

Coulter is trying to appeal to libertarians to join forces with Republicans to restore the freedom of the U.S. Her point is that we need to join forces against the liberals who want to control our very lives!!! They need to recognize that we have more in common than we have differences. They need to let go of their pet peeves and remember how important it is to defeat our common enemy, the Democrats, who control virtually all of the media. United we stand, divided we fall to the statists!!! Defeat them first, then we can TALK!!!

jen

You want libertarains to join force the with the likes of Romney/Rubio/Cheney that fund Coulter. You are nuts – can you get any more unpatriotic and luny?

Anonymous

DO THE WORLD A FAVOR AND JUMP OFF OF A CLIFF! The only possible outcome from reading your posts is brain damage!

jen

DNC and RNC are equally enemies, as they are partners and the same one evil agenda. Hence, they work together to lock out and demonize 3rd parties and other viewpoints.

For those more aligned with libertarian/constitution party, your comment will never resonate as we are not in the gop/dnc umbrella and hence do not need to use their talking points like you are doing.

Anonymous

ah, but what you fail to understand is that which you call pet peeves are matters of utmost importance to libertarians.

what you fail to understand is that it is not the liberals that control anything. we are against corporate power, and who owns the media/government….? corporate power. its a bit frustrating to have people such as yourself assuming that what you hear out of the mouth holes of people on tv in any way reflects what i believe. they are mindless agents of the corporate state, promoting whatever message their owners pay them to preach.

so…. i may not be your enemy despite what you may have heard. i have no personal interest in controlling your life, i wish that we would all have more control over all our lives.

Maybe Glenn just is so desparate to save our country that he fell for the Libertarian platform. Thinking they have the right idea. Now he sees the real faces of libertarians. So don’t be so down about it Glenn, it’s a good thing. Just like you believed in the GOP partriot act and it disappointed you, now you are going through the same thing with some of these radical libertarians. It will pass and you’ll be better for it.

jen

I am not a Beck fan, but Beck never supported the radical libertarians like some Ron Paul supportes. Beck is supporting moderate libertarianism like Rand Paul and Jillette. But no worries, Beck is still mainly in the gop estab (romney/rubio) category with half a foot in libertarians. And when he is done whatever he intends, he will go back full swing to gop entirely. Just like Beck liked Christie and then fell out of love, he might backstab Rand and choose another gop rival.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1248035121 Ian Daily

The entire premise of this is ridiculous. I am a State Chair for California of the Young Americans for Liberty – aka, the largest student political group in the country, and also libertarian-leaning though legally non-partisan – and also a Marine veteran. The primary concern of the VAST majority of Libertarians is the current state of the economy, the corporate welfare and symbiotic regulations that are suffocating the private sector of America. The only reason the drug issue even gets picked up is because that is what the media (including yourself, Mr. Beck) decides to pick up on.

To put the ‘young, Ron Paul types’ and the OWS groups in the same category is completely unfounded and erroneous on so many levels. Most of the people in the former group identify with the root impetus for the OWS movement, but are extremely critical of their “solutions,” if they could even be postulated as such, and understand that deregulating the economy will render the desired result by the protesters.

I, along with nearly any of my colleagues in Young Americans for Liberty and related groups (Students for Liberty, Campaign for Liberty, etc) would not shirk an opportunity to talk to Glenn or Ann or any of the other conservative talking-heads and present the enormous amount of common ground between the traditional GOP/conservatives and the Liberty movement (in this case as identified by “libertarians”) share.

The issue right now is social conservatism is at death’s door, and in order for the principles of limited government to regain politically viable, the GOP must scale back its ideas on foreign policy and the role of the government in societal construction. The Democrats have positioned themselves as the party of the nanny-state, class warfare, citizen-assassination, illegal foreign intervention, and erosion of the middle class. I, and a significant number of Libertarians, would support a GOP that abstained from the social/economic hypocrisy that has characterized both parties for the last 50 years.

If the GOP can demonstrate that it truly is the party of limited government, then it will gain a lot of traction with the Liberty movement. A lot of us still lean right on the scale of political false dichotomy. However, if the GOP wants to fade away and become nothing but an also-ran, then by all means, continue the interventionist foreign policy and continue to deny that the relationship between the State and the private sector is the same as between the State and the individual.

Anonymous

deregulation creates liberty for those with money and tyranny for everyone else.

What neo cons do not understand is the difference between social and economic issues. Social issues are for the courts and the churches to settle out. the economic issues are for the house and the president to figure out. But its so polluted with Lobbyists that there is no way what we have become will be sustainable. There not a single cuss word. Lets see if this makes it through.

Anonymous

Good for her, only P***ies sit on the fence!!!

http://twitter.com/mnfowler Miles Fowler

As a former Libertarian Party activist and still a libertarian (with a small “L”), I agree with Glenn’s position. I think he is more pure than the purist libertarians who believe everyone should believe as they do or they’re rubbish. I do think Ann Coulter is off track to think legalization is a joke. A lot of the social issues that conservatives make into a big deal are equally beside the point or more so when the real issue is the reality that the U.S. political economy is heading into the toilet. We can apply family-values litmus tests after we pull the country out of its nose dive. By the same token, libertarians do themselves a disservice by continuing to think leftists can be seduced by confusing a libertarian with a libertine message. As a child of the ’60s and ’70s, I have known marijuana, but I don’t care if I ever smoke or ingest it ever again. That is beside the point. While the ultimate principled argument for legalization has to do with the right of the individual to do what he wills with his body (provided he’s willing also to take responsibility for the consequences of his own behavior), I am more consequential in my position: legalization is urgent mainly because the illegalization of recreational drug use has been counterproductive to the point of being disastrous for the whole world. It isn’t just that it doesn’t work; it’s that it is part of the problem rather than the solution.

http://twitter.com/NacheThunder Ryan Nace

totally disagree with Ann Coulter. Being against the drug war and against wars that aren’t for imminent self defense is not pandering to Democrats. It’s taking principled stands on tough issues. It’s the Principle of Non Aggression. She just wants to dismiss them because they don’t validate her pre-conceived bias and she can’t find logical fault in the arguments. This is very scary to most people. While she makes the same arguments to protect “Defense” spending as Liberals make for welfare spending, Libertarians are the only ones out there saying, “We don’t need the government to force us to save for our retirement or take money we’ve earned to give to those who didn’t earn it. We don’t need 900 bases around the world and we don’t need to give billions of $ of foreign aid and F16s to the Muslim Brotherhood.” The only thing she’s got right is the attitude many Libertarians have towards non Libertarians. We need to understand that we have to help people see the truth through a culture that has excepted more and more tyranny and government violations of individual rights over the past several generations. screaming at people won’t work. we need to guide people to the truth using reason and calm heads.

Anonymous

truth through reason, do you have to even ask why conservatives don’t like you?
reason has its own component of tyranny.

Anonymous

aaaaaand once again this is why libertarians dont like you.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_64WBESDSHTBTDAT7TF7F7YPVYI Marc

Well honestly.. the entire country can literally get behind Christ Christie…. he still won’t be getting my vote though.

Rex Whitmer

In reading over the comments written before I got here today, I find more dissagreement than agreement in so far as Libertarianism is concerned. I have claimed an affection for the Republican party since high school days which are long passed, and have seen the same sort of thing tear up that party. Today I register Republican but realize that America can no longer go on that way. The Republicans have been defensive and have allowed themselves to be pushed into what thirty years ago was the Democratic Party. Lately we have had the Tea Party attempt to re-structure the Repubs back thirty years, and for a time I thought they were winning. What I now call the the RINO’s have seized the money and the delegates and weakened the party back to the same weak kneed party of the past thirty years!

Were we able to ask the founders of our nation what group resembles their concept of government the most, they would most likely be somewhere between the Tea Party and the milder Libertarians. They would definitely be shocked and dismayed by the Democratic party as it exists today.

The founders who originated the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were hearty, freedom loving individuals with a strong moral sense that appears to be lacking in most of America today. Men and women of that day would be insulted and die rather than have their government feeding them or giving them money. They would have however, have given their last nickel to a person who was without means and insisted that the person need not repay them; but they would be thankful and respectful of the person that did. To them, freedom meant providing for one’s self and kin. Today, many Americans don’t even know their own kin. In those days kinship was the most important connection and it was honored. Religion was important and everyone knew that there was a God who looked after mankind and would judge them.

Today the government takes the place of God, or tries to. They bless whom they will bless and curse those whom they would curse, but they use the money and work of the governed to do it. They believe that God did not create the world nor does he care for it today. They have elevated themselves in their own minds to God’s position and determine what is right and wrong according to their precepts. The Democratic (Socialist, Communist) party today assumes that position in so far as America is concerned. They create fiction to secure that position, while they deny that they themselves are subject to it. The Republican party half believes the fiction of the Democrats and half dis-believes it. A strong leader can lead a majority of them out for a time, but soon the strong leader finds his clay feet and the Democrats become gods again!

Libertarians are but a breath on the heaving turmoil that is the American people today. The people existed free and secure until about the time of Theodore Roosevelt when that strong leader decided that Americans decided that freedom wasn’t as important as government and began the process that went from then until now of chipping away on freedom after another until now when we cannot even decide what sort of light bulb should light our homes or what sort of fuel should power our transportation or whether we should wear seat belts or not! We are no longer the LAND OF THE FREE! Drugs of all sorts were sold in drug stores and gangsters had no hand in their distribution, and we didn’t have to see a doctor and pay him fifty dollars to perscribe a medicine that cost ten dollars. In poorly educated Mexico, with few exceptions I go buy my own drugs at about a third the cost of the same prescription in the USA without seeing my doctor.

Libertarians need to unite and realize that this nation was created for libertarians by libertarians! We have no need for Democrats or Republicans or big government to tell us how to Live! We have an idiot who is cheif of other idiots dwelling in the White House who has no desire to allow Americans to live freely. He wants your money, your lives, your freedom and your worship!

Anonymous

“The founders who originated the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were hearty, freedom loving individuals with a strong moral sense that appears to be lacking in most of America today.”
you forgot to mention their love of free land and free labor.

Anonymous

Libertarians are extremely closed minded. I have had to defend Rand Paul of all people many times against Libertarians. Their philosophy is one of having an open mind but those who I have blogged with are as closed minded as any I have ever talked to. Libertarians can never effect change because they do not seek agreement by understanding. They seek agreement by insults and alienating people which prevents them from getting any traction in politics so their party will always be fringe. I agree with Glen that they are a tool of the left but aren’t aware enough to understand that. They continue to demonize Republican candidates after the primaries are over because they are trying highjack the Republican Party. The country would be better served if they tried to take over the Democrat Party which they share many social issues with.

Anonymous

We need to return to biblical values and policies that support traditional American culture. Libertarianism is a dead end as far as I’m concerned. It’s also frequently Anti-Christian and Anti-Biblical. Jesus NEVER abrogated the moral law under Moses, but he did tell the Jewish leaders of His time what the moral law actually means/requires and how to abide by it in a way that’s not legalistic as the Pharisees would have it but not lawless as heretical libertarians/liberals/progressives would favor – Dr. Tom Snyder, http://www.theculturewatch.com – See also 1 Samuel 8:1-20, Exodus 20 and 23:3, Leviticus 18:1-30 and 19:15, and Deuteronomy 16:18-20 (biblical representative gov’t and a definition of real justice) and 6:4-9, 1 Timothy 5:3-16, and 2 Thessalonians 6-15. By the way, we’re winning the drug war now in many places, including my suburban neighborhood, but you never totally win a war on any kind of crime because, as God teaches, the intentions of people’s hearts are evil from their youth.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Jan-Conroy/100000695756376 Jan Conroy

Genesis 1:29 — try reading God’s words for comprehension.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Scott-Todd/1424651317 Scott Todd

You’re trying to justify pot with that quote but fail to consider that was uttered before the fall of mankind.

Anonymous

I agree with Ann. I think the Libertarians have turned into a group of whiners that want it all their way or no way. They will stand in the way of Republicans winning elections simply because Republicans don’t like their guy. When they would rather re-elect a radical leftist like Obama instead of stand behind the Republican nominee, that’s when I know that it is all about them getting their own way and not about where the country is headed. They act like a group of spoiled kids that will ruin the whole party because they don’t get to blow out the candles. And yes, the issues they stand on and are the louded about are the most frivolous. I mean, legalization of pot is that important? Furthermore, as those that pretend to care so much about the Constitution, they should know that national defense is the main priority of the federal government. If they aren’t prepared to do what needs to be done, then they think as little about the Constitution as liberals do.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Jan-Conroy/100000695756376 Jan Conroy

” I mean, legalization of pot is that important?” It is if one is a constitutional conservative. Prohibition is a progressive thing and, besides, it gives too much power to, and encourage Nazi-like behavior in, local law enforcement. When will conservatives and libertarians learn their history?!? It also caused the build-up of the “prison industrial complex” that both conservatives and libertarians should abhor. Legalize pot and you take the profit out of it (as you can grow it yourself) — so no more Mexican Mafia benefiting off the illegal trade to the tune of 100’s of billions of dollars annually. Just look at all of the government officials on both sides of the border who will lose all that untaxed bribe money! That in itself would make me happy.

BS61

I agree – but when will Libertarian learn Islamic history? Thomas Jefferson started the Navy despite his beliefs that we should avoid foreign entanglements. American’s were being held by Muslim pirates for ransom – and most libertarians only talk of today’s occupations!

http://twitter.com/ToddJMoore H. Todd J. Moore

Neither Mark Levin nor Glenn Beck supported Ron Paul. I still love the work of both men. We need to accomplish our primary goal first – making sure we have a nation where we CAN debate – prior to picking nits over the minor items. I have been an avowed Libertarian my entire adult life, and would still consider Beck and Levin to be brothers in arms.

jen

I would say yes to Levin, but he has to move towards 3rd party.
With Beck, you need to keep alert as he has a chronic tendancy to flip flop like the priest of his mormon church.

http://youtu.be/R7MC2wu49Cw Sam Fisher

I say we need to keep alert with everyone we listen to period if not then we can easily fall prey to others.

Anonymous

So, anyone who changes his mind is a flip-flopper?

http://www.facebook.com/people/Jan-Conroy/100000695756376 Jan Conroy

Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian. Perhaps you missed it, but, Paul just ran off to the UN to do an end-run around US law — so he can steal the websites his supporters created and own. Anyone who goes to the UN for help stealing property from others is NOT a libertarian, a liberal, maybe, but a thief for sure. BTW, the UN blew him off, so the little jerk ruined his libertarian reputation for nothing.

Anonymous

Good Lord, remember — Ann is the same person that told us Romney was the new GOP Messiah to dethrone the Progressive Messiah. She’s Establishment Republican, which means she’s indistinguishable from an Establishment Progressive.

Anonymous

crap. Now I got to apologize. had the popular filter on.

Anonymous

it turns out that there are more ideological divides then what there appears to be.

in my experience the divide between libertarians and conservatives is about the role of authority. in general, conservatives believe in authority and the use of power (religion, military) to achieve social aims (a charge they level at liberals, mirror mirror) whereas libertarians believe that authority and power should be market forces, determined by money.

for libertarians, those with the most money should have the most power and authority. this is repugnant to most conservatives who have notions of right and wrong and are fearful that this market system of power could produce a hedonistic hellhole where we are all just serfs with big screen tvs (I share that concern).

so while conservatives and liberals both see government power as a means to achieve social goals they have different notions of what those goals are (fair enough…) conservatives seem intent on preserving traditional power structures, while liberals look to tear down many of those same structures in the name of creating more democratic forms of power sharing. this obviously scares those with power (hence the antagonism with church, state, and corporate power). Where libertarians and conservatives meet is over their shared hatred of government. conservatives see government as the potential tool of liberals to change social power structure (take prayer out of schools for example) whereas libertarians see government as a force to limit personal freedoms (own a gun, smoke pot, make all the money in the world). Where liberals and libertarians meet is on issues of personal freedom (smoking pot again… no state promotion of religion) but they differ on issues of who should hold power, market forces or democratic forces (yes, libertarians are anti-democractic)

any honest discussion would cover the useful role that all these forces play in a society and how to balance them all into a workable society. instead we get all this talk about how one or the other needs to be destroyed and represents the ultimate force of tyranny.

however, as a honest to god liberal and a supporter of the occupy ideas, i would much rather throw my support in with the conservatives than with the libertarians.

Anonymous

The left in America has been grinding to the welfare-socialist state for over 100 years. The progress that they have made is evident in Obama and his second term agenda (which is only more hardcore than the first term). Democrats didn’t necessarily agree with socialists and socialists didn’t agree with communists but they sure were all rowing in the same direction! That’s what we all have to do – Libertarians, Republicans, Constitutionalists and like the leftists we need to concentrate on the really important things …. like the deficit, the budget and protecting our freedom. Personally I have become more conservative and in some respects Libertarian but I realize that if you don’t balance the damn budget and do it through cuts that the leftists will simply bankrupt the Country and impose their totalitarian vision of no guns except government guns, green-weenie energy, 3rd world status for the US and total control of our lives – we see what is coming every day in small and big ways. Everything from the stupidity of 16 oz. soft drinks in NY to the implementation of killer drones in US skies. Required government schools from the age of 3 to heavily armed protection for politicians, banks and news scum to disarmament of everyone else. Glenn is right – we have a short window to start getting behind people of conviction and conscience otherwise we get another pale imitation of a leader and another person pushing for more of the welfare state and less freedom. No army ever won a war on the defensive.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Jan-Conroy/100000695756376 Jan Conroy

” No army ever won a war on the defensive.”

The Afghan tribes seem to have been doing a good job of it against Westerners for nearly 200 years — the English couldn’t win, nor could the Russians. The Soviets failed, as well, in their more recent effort and we will be bugging out shortly — leaving the “Mayor of Kabul” (Hamid Karzai) to face a fate similar to that of Benito Mussolini, if he doesn’t head for Zurich first. Defensive wars are won at home, not abroad.

Anonymous

Children deserve a mother AND a father. Marriage is an institution designed by God for men and women. Homosexuality destroys the family and the intimacy that Nature and Nature’s God created for men and women, who complement one another. No fault divorce laws and secular marriage contracts are great evils. If same-sex laws are allowed, then those of us who want to retain God’s definition of marriage and our children and families will be oppressed, as is already happening now in Massachusetts and California and other pro-sodomy states, and in the U.S. military.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Jan-Conroy/100000695756376 Jan Conroy

California is not a “pro-sodomy state” — we voted to ban same-sex marriage, not once, but twice through citizen’s initiatives. It was the scofflaw mayor of San Francisco that refused to comply with the ban and started handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples, throwing the thing into the courts. This required a constitutional amendment be passed, again, by the people to stop the practice. Now this is going to the Supreme Court because a gay federal judge threw out our state’s constitutional amendment. You forget that California is a center-right state being overwhelmed by illegal aliens, legal aliens, East Coast leftists and Hollywood wannabes from all corners of the country. Reagan Country is now occupied territory. Sadly, this couldn’t have happened without that 1986 amnesty. Keep that in mind as you watch the Dems and Repubs sell out the rest of the states with that mega-amnesty (on steroids) for 40-50 million illegals. For those of you who believe the government when it tells you that there are only 10-11 million illegals, I have a bridge to sell you in San Francisco dirt cheap!

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001060075027 William Faraone

Ann Coulter is suggesting to Libertarians: “Choose your battles!” I have learned in 67 years that she is right. Pick what is most important that then work towards it without saying you demand that everything change ‘RIGHT NOW!” Tolerance & Allowance with effort to change the government by convincing the VOTERS {right & left} to vote your way – you are not alone. If you choose to be a “My way or the highway.” it will be the highway for YOU. So, align with those who might be willing to work with you to create the world you wish to have.

Anonymous

Damnit all of you!! Get together behind The Declaration of Independence and the constitution with the 10 bill of rights!!! You all should be championing defenders of ^^^^^not the little issues that divide us but unifie together on the documents above….. That’s the bigger picture.. !!!! People the globists are ripping are rights apart… Once there gone yours will be on deaf ears I hope so we don’t have long!!

Anonymous

you might want to mention the shredding of sovereignty by trade agreements in your next rant. but essentially you get the point.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000194745788 Ken Niemuth

If you consider the Occupy Wall Street types libertarians then you are out of touch and so is Ann Coulter. I used to like he, but now I see her for what she is: a sanctimonious mouthpiece for the Republican party who wants to control the lives of others both foreign and domestic.

http://twitter.com/N0M0reCages No More Cages

Coulter is trying to bring the ‘bigger picture’ into view with respect to the welfare state and prevalence of the socialist mentality in the US, but I felt that her mentions of government subsidy was more perfunctory than from conviction. The corporatocracy benefits no matter whether a republican or democrat is in the White House, and I do not believe she has any qualms with supporting the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex or the medical industrial complex. I hate government social welfare because the government enslaves both the people being stolen from pay for it, and the people receiving it. But corporate welfare remains largely undiscussed, and is just as, if not more evil than social welfare. Still, Coulter harping on the drugs and marriage issue underlies a point that is missed: young libertarians are seemingly leaning much more toward voluntaryism, or anarcho-capitalism, and I believe the point is this: if the government will recognize that it has no authority over what I put into my own body, then perhaps the argument can be forwarded that it also has no right to take the fruit of my labor, especially to use that money to do things that I find morally repugnant.

Glenn, or anyone of his staff who may read these things, you should examine the philosophy of voluntaryism, and research some potential solutions for organizing society offered by market anarchists (anarchocapitalists). The fundamental premise is the non-aggression principle, or the lack of the initiation of force, coercion or violence in voluntary transactions. You probably won’t be convinced, but the material is compelling and worth considering. Anarchy does not mean “no rules,”, it means “no rulers.” Take that in with your perspective, and perhaps a deeper understanding will occur.

BS61

The new anarhists believe in total government control. The old anarchist are angry at the new anarchist – check out some message boards.

Stop saying this kind of idiocy. I bet you have never read an anarcho-capitalist in your whole life.

BS61

Actually love Austrian economics. Totally disapprove of anyone with an Anarchist prefix or A symbol by their name.

Anarchists want to have no government. Anarchist that march today at any march want total government control. Go to some of their message boards. Just look at them joining the marches in AZ against the immigration reform, to marching at occupy to destroy things. They want to destroy America, I don’t believe that libertarians do.

Anonymous

Permissiveness is not the same as freedom. Confusing the two paves the road to slavery. It might not be apparent at first but over time, bit by bit, Truths will be eroded in the name of Liberty and Freedom. Libertarian need to recognize what True Freedom is and that True Freedom (as much as it may bother them) has limits.

Rejection of Christ is the only way! We need a totalitarian state that disenfranchises Christians, MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

http://www.facebook.com/luci.dmari Luci D’Mari

Better late than never, Glenn. Now you seem to agree with Ron Paul that we shouldn’t have bases all over the world and we should not be in undeclared wars and we should bring our troops home, etc. Now we should all stand with Rand Paul to take over where Ron left off.
As you say, we have 18 mnths. Let’s get it right this time..

I adore Ann! She stands up for Conservatives and has my view of supporting war — even though many do not! War is Hell, but it isn’t possible to totally avoid it! Ron Paul wouldn’t have tried to “save” us at all!

Canadianlady

When I watch this clip of how these young people are reacting to Anne Coulter, it makes me feel that there is no hope for America. People are putting their single issues ahead of freedom.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Jan-Conroy/100000695756376 Jan Conroy

Paulistas are not libertarians, they are Paulistas. There’s a difference. Paulistas are members of a personality cult (think Jonestown), libertarians follow an actual philosophy. And, Ann is wrong on the pot thing, we are wasting far too much money and way too many resources on something that is a constitutionally (1st Amendment) protected herb. See: Holy Bible, Old Testament, first book, Genesis 1:29, allegedly, God speaking to Adam and Eve on the sixth day of the Creation. Prohibition (drug and later alcohol) was instituted by Progressives as a racist program to control minorities (through deportation and/or imprisonment). History, people, learn your history!

Anonymous

Being able to put whatever you want into your body is true freedom but today the taxpayers are forced to pick up the tab for those that cannot afford to pay the medical expenses for the negative side effects of drugs. This country is so deep in socialism that the government does everything in its power to keep people from taking responsibility for their own actions. In a society where people do not take personal responsibility for their own actions there can be no freedom because they impose themselves on others. The more responsible people are the less police and regulations are needed. A socialist government, which we have now, encourages irresponsible behavior to be able to have the power of a bigger police force and dominating regulations whether that be personal or corporate entitlements. Personal responsibility makes freedom possible. Society is going in the opposite direction and drugs only exasperates that problem even more.

There ya go. When has anyone on the ‘left’ had differences of minute degrees? They don’t….they all march lock/goose step with no discussion. I relish the conversation amongst those that want limited g’mint and individual freedom with their nitpicking over details. If anyone would take the time/energy to read the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers, people would be amazed…..they had fantastic discussions, but BOTH would have been appalled by where the ‘left/D’ is now.

Anonymous

Glenn,

I don’t know if you read these but if you do I’d like to try to explain. I’m a 40 year old man that has been a libertarian since 1996 because of a man named Harry Browne. Have you ever noticed the most recent converts to a cause are the most radical? The idea of liberty arouses such passion because it unlocks a lot of deep feeling people have had that all start to make sense. The problem with these people is they haven’t had the time to think about and defend their ideas. You should know there is a difference in someone explaining something to you so that you understand and agree with and being to explain it yourself.

I have been watching you on and off since HLN. I have always told my wife this guy is going to be a raging Libertarian one day. It’s going to take a while because the older you get the harder it is to make each connection and break down your previous views. The last one to fall is typically the support of our military empire. That one is truly devastating for most people because you can’t believe you were cheering for the killing of innocent people you don’t even know and never harmed you. I don’t expect you to understand yet. You are still a few years away from this from what I can tell. But most people that start down this road do get here eventually. When you do you will understand why people love Ron Paul. He is one of the people that have walked the path and have been guiding many people on their journey and people are very grateful.

If you want to understand more talk to Mike Church who is a broadcaster out of New Orleans. He has almost finished the journey but he has made the step to stop supporting the empire. Ask him how hard it was to make that step.

Glenn, I wish you peace, love, and liberty.

Elizabeth Bracy

I “discovered” libertarianism 4 or 5 years ago, and researched it, and have been one ever since. I’ve absolutely had it with progressive Dems and Repubs and the freaking circus that D.C. has turned into. I’ll have a conversation with anybody about it! I’m not for anarchy like Ron Swanson (Parks and Rec!) and agree that some govt. is necessary, but I firmly believe in maximum freedom, minimal government, and NEITHER party is getting us there. If it’s Chris Christie in 2016, he won’t win against Hillary.
On a funny note, Ron Swanson’s comment last week is hilarious-
“Do you like apples?” “Yeah, I like apples.” “Do you want to buy some?” That’s how hard it should be to open a business in this country. -Ron Swanson

lostcall

Ann you never back down which is why I admire you although I only agree with 95% of what you say, I don’t like Gov Christie.

Anonymous

I agree. I don’t know why she likes Krispy Kreme!

http://www.facebook.com/joyce.romano.524 Joyce Romano

Ann is 100% right. I see the Libertarians as pointless in their approach to our problems. They DO focus on drug legalization and homosexual marriage. And our govt is SO socialist/fascist already that those items are the LEAST of our problems. If the Libertarians don’t get their act together and stop acting like unserious college kids (we were all college kids once), they will never be taken seriously. They must learn to understand the concept “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and band together for maximum resistance, otherwise they will be able to smoke pot, which Dems would be happy about because stoners are much easier to control. If the Libertarians think their enemy are Republicans who aren’t in favor of abortion, drug legalization or gay marriage, then they side with the Democrats who are the socialist and want to control EVERY aspect of their lives. I’d say it’s their choice…except we have very few choices in life left here in America that King Barry isn’t trying to control. If they want to remain a third party….they are already defeated. And what’s the point of THAT? Pick a side, Libertarians and be CLEAR about who you are.

Anonymous

Libertarians should be asked how they feel about polygamy in all its glorious forms: polygyny, polyandry, multiple men and women (don’t know the term for that one!), etc. The answers should be quite interesting.
You’re right. These are the least of our problems. Unfortunately, on our side, some among us are willing to discredit a candidate on a single issue. While I will do that if the issue the important enough, many do it on trivial things.

I believe we only have a short time left before our country completely goes the way of Western Europe.

Anonymous

if people want polygamy, has no effect on my life why not

http://www.facebook.com/people/Scott-Todd/1424651317 Scott Todd

Actually it might- it creates a shortage of marriageable women.

BS61

I believe that the RINO Ann’s are stereotyping the Libertarians, which the first girl called her out on – she is Libertarian, religious and doesn’t do drugs. Most Libertarians will honestly answer and thus fall into the MSM trap.

Anonymous

Glenn Beck is a “Libertarian” for now, but we’ll see where he is three years down the road.
He was a republican, than an independent, than a conservative, and he’s now a libertarian.
Just as he was once a Catholic before becoming a Mormon…
Just as he was once a hard drinking rock and roll dj before becoming a right wing talking head…
Just as he was once a preppy urbanite before moving to Texas and becoming a low grade cowboy…

Five years from now, Glenn may be living in West Hollywood and fighting against right wing bigots. I GUARANTEE you that he will be closer to that than the opposite.
WATCH.

That’s the appealing thing about Beck—he refuses to be held down by convictions or loyalties. He’s free as a bird!

Anonymous

Yeah, and Ronald Reagan was a Democrat and union thug before he made his speech for Barry Goldwater! So?

BS61

So I guess you haven’t changed your positions once you’ve become aware that you’ve been lied to?

Anonymous

I’ve been a libertarian for over 30 years and can guarantee that libertarians don’t agree on absolutely everything. I’ve listened to your show for about 10 years or so, along with Rush. I don’t feel like I have to agree with everything you say in order to listen. I know where your stands are libertarian and where they aren’t. Just the fact that you are on the air and have said the word “libertarian” as often as you have, has more people finding out about libertarian thought and realizing that they are indeed libertarians themselves. I went for decades trying to talk to people about it–quite unsuccessfully for the most part. So, I’m appreciative of this new-found “press” the philosophy is getting, even if others are not.

http://www.facebook.com/ecoggeshall Ethan Coggeshall

These are the speeches from him that I really miss.

Anonymous

Ann Coulter is a snake.
She is evil, racist and soulless.
Of course Glenn sees a connection to her.
The real question is, “How long will Glenn Beck wait before he divorces wife number 2 and goes off pursuing Coulter as wife number 3?”
Glenn is at least one or two marriages behind his other “Christian” friend Rush!!!

http://www.facebook.com/people/Scott-Todd/1424651317 Scott Todd

As for same-sex marriage, I wish Coulter would have mentioned “The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” Since our liberties come from there they need to be in harmony with them and SSM doesn’t do that.

Anonymous

All of the religious arguments aside, in my view the laws about marriage were settled when Utah was admitted to the Union in 1896. The federal government told the Mormons that they could not have polygamy and that the state would not be run as a theocracy. With same-sex marriage, the feds are opening the door to polygamy…in my humble opinion.

Anonymous

nature’s god is the version of god as applied by deists.
in other words he don’t care about gay people/is not transcendent.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Scott-Todd/1424651317 Scott Todd

If you actually watch Glenn’s program, especially when he has David Barton on, you’d know that was a lie.

Anonymous

God does care and God permits us to reject Him.

False Freedom — do as one desires
True Freedom — do that which is right

Anonymous

Why is it I can’t get one of you to contact me? I know how to stop the health care law

I’ve been a Republican a long time, but many years ago, I contemplated the process of how to make the drug usage less violent and dangerous. It was filling up prisons, and the drug cartels get more rich and more violent every day. If we took the criminal element out of drugs, how would that change the use of drugs? How would it affect out prisons, our schools, our societies? I have thought about all of this and this coming from a very conservative and “religious” person. Personally, I don’t think the fact that drugs are illegal affects the decision for a person to use or not. People who are willing to mess up their bodies and minds don’t really care if it’s illegal. They have no respect for themselves. Now, I have not convinced myself that this is the right way to go, but the more I think about it the more I believe it should be legal to purchase and use and then the crime would end or at least be drastically reduced. And about the gay thing, I don’t understand it, but I have two people in my family who I’ve known since they were toddlers that they would grow up to be gay. I truly don’t believe they ever felt they had a choice. Their lives were like that before they had any knowledge of sexuality, Now, can they take hormones to help them be what their anatomy tells them they should be? I don’t know, but as a nurse I also know the genetic coding does make this happen. My daughter put it to me like this: I would not want the government telling me who I can love and how I can love them. I don’t have the answers but the questions need to be considered legit.

Anonymous

People have the Free Will Choice to do as they desire. They don’t have to ask for permission, yet they still do. It’s because they want something more — our permission. When then Sinner the stands before God and He asks who said the Evil was OK, they will point to those who said it was OK. The Sinniner would have spoken the Truth. Those who do Evil are still accountable for what they do — but those who know the Truth gave them a Lie (permission) are accountable also.

Ezekiel 3:16 and following: 16 And at the end of seven days, the word of
the LORD came to me: 17 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the
house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give
them warning from me. 18 If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’
and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his
wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his
iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 But if you warn
the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked
way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you will have saved your life.
20 Again, if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits
iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because
you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous
deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will
require at your hand. 21 Nevertheless if you warn the righteous man not
to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took
warning; and you will have saved your life.”The Truth must be spoken and for all to hear. We must hold to that which is right and wrong so others may hear. What we choose for the offender as earthly reparations is our business and must be as right and just as we can make it. However, we still have to warn what is right and wrong.

http://www.facebook.com/david.sommer.988 David Sommer

As long as any of the “sides” continues to believe that they have all and the only answers, nothing will be resolved. I’m a conservative. I believe that the libertarians have many good ideas and points. Unfortunately, unless we have an actual revolt we will never make the changes needed all at once. They will be incremental, so, although we need to reach for the stars we also need to be wise and figure out how to get important issues addressed first. At least this is my opinion.

But tell me who is against incremental change? This is just a fallacious argument. Libertarians have a set of principles. Everything that makes things closer to that set of principles is encouraged. But that doesn’t mean that libertarians think it’s enough.

For instance, anarcho-capitalists (the most intelectually coherent group) think that NO TAX at all is legitimate. None. Nada. It violates the Non Agression Principle. Yet, if government lower taxes from 30% to 25%, they will cheer it, but, at the same time, they will say: we still have to get rid of the remaining 25%.

This is not against incrementalism. Libertarians are just against compromising their principles, as “conservatives” do all the time. As Tom Woods always say, what conservatives considered a mortal sin 200 years ago is now thought of as being normal and good (for instance, intervention of the State in marriage, all sorts of regulations, social security etc.).

slickmeister

What bothers me most about libertarians is that they fail to recognize that without a common moral framework, we have no civil society and without a civil society, all of the civil rights they defend do not exist.

Your argument is a fallacy. Libertarians DO recognize the need of moral values. THAT doesn’t mean they think the STATE should IMPOSE moral values. In fact, libertarians say that the State CORRUPTS moral values, because it necessarily creates moral relativism (well, this is easily proved, right?).

On the other hand, libertarians say that liberty fosters morallity, because, insofar as a moral rule is good, it provides good consequences. Hence, with everybody is responsible for his actions, they are responsible for their consequences. Therefore, there is a general incentive for people acting morally — when the moral rule is in fact good.

Let me give you one example. Libertarians (I’m talking about the intellectuals, not the crackpot on the street!) generally think drugs are bad. And they favor no State regulation whatsoever about drugs. Then, conservatives usually conclude that this would be terrible, because it would promote drug use. But this is faulty reasoning. First, prohibition simply doesn’t work and creates a lot of bad unintended consequences; second, it destroys personal responsibility. Hence, drug users can externalize the costs of drug use. Therefore, prohibition ends creating a kind of incentive for drug use.

Libertarianism, when truly understood, promotes family values, as strange as it may seem to you. Please, read the “Why conservatives should be libertarians?” chapter in Hans-Hermann Hoppe book, “Democracy: The God That Failed”.

How did Paulies and Occupy protesters get lumped into the same category?

Anonymous

Listen up
America.

Did you know the Obama’s affordable care act is unconstitutional???????

1 The
Federal Government is going to run the health care act.

2 The Federal
Government will have all your personal health information from any and all doctors
you have ever seen. This means your blood work DNA. Eye exams et….

3 The
Federal Government wants any and all your Medical history to control you

4 The
federal Government will decide your care, what medications, what treatment and
the cost of your care. Will you be an asset to the government able to pay taxes,
work longer retire later? I
hope so if not don’t get sick or terminal you will not get the right care if
any at all.

5 The
Federal Government will decide your fate. To much control for our limited
Government.

Now for
the rest of the story!

6 The
federal government can and will have all the doctors confidential information
on every citizen in the United States. Would they not also have confidential
information about the Congress and the Senate people also?

7 The
federal Government would be able to sway votes. Here is why if a member of any
one of these offices had skeletons from their past they may not want public
they could be forced to vote one way or the other.

I don’t believe this can in anyway be constitutional if you
think it is then hope you have a clean medical history, no skeletons you don’t want
exposed. They are collecting all your history since birth and putting it in
cyber space.

Your records and personal information you may not want me or
anyone else to know about will be put out there for all to see. Please
understand you have rights.

Do you realize your medical records are shared with law enforcement
agencies if they request it!

Wake up fellow Americans
you do have Rights!!!!!

Anonymous

Well known, “establishment” conservative, William F. Buckley was for decriminalizing (sp?) drugs. His logic was–and it’s the same one against prohibition of alcohol–the laws weren’t working to prevent use and importation/production. Most of the time, I agree with Ann. In this case, I don’t.

I wish we got Glenns actual live radio broadcasts down here,as is elsewhere.All we have is a Best Of late Sunday evenings.Liz

http://www.facebook.com/people/Scott-Todd/1424651317 Scott Todd

deleted dreaded double post

Susan

Libertarians are so ignorant. Since Socrates, it has been known in Western Civilization that there is NO Freedom without Virtue. All the Founders stated this—that Free Republics have to promote Public Virtue. That is the ONLY reason for education. Montesquieu wrote that. Anyone who raised children understand that need for Virtue. All relationships collapse without VIRTUE. Economics collapses without virtuous people. You get bribes and stealing and inefficient costly economies and a need for a police state. The cost of crime is unsustainable with immoral people.

Morality is Justice—which is a Virtue. So if a government has JUST LAWS it is promoting Virtue. Yes, Justice is a Virtue. Governments are only to promote JUSTICE!!!! WHICH IS promoting MORALITY—-it is teaching respect for other human rights–private property which has to be respected to have any efficient economy.

That is why “homosexual” marriage is unconstitutional. It is the promotion of Vice. Sodomy can never be moral and a “Right”–except a Right from Satan which is NOT recognized in our Constitution. Only God-Given Rights are “Rights’. There is no Right to sodomize other human beings—it is dehumanizing, vile and should be illegal because it treats human beings as a “means to and end” which is intrinsically evil—as all Marxism/Socialism is—all unconstitutional.
This idea that everyone can do their “own” thing is anarchy!!! You can NOT have a CIVIL society without Universal Rules (Natural Laws where Rights come from God is our Supreme Law of the Land. That is extremely MORAL. It is why the USA was so successful on every level). Only Marxism (Feminism/Homosexualists) promotes Vice—to collapse civil society—to make slaves of the masses and make slaves of “urges”. Feelings trump Intellect. It is evil.

Anonymous

so you want iran with more jesus and less muhammad

Anonymous

Ann the Man Coulter has an Adam’s apple

Anonymous

There is something wrong about Ann’s Adam’s apple

Anonymous

God did not create women with Adam’s apples, so why does Ann the Man have one?

Anonymous

I once made the mistake of mixing red wine and painkillers

Anonymous

and then I made the worse mistake of watching Ann the Man on Fox News

Anonymous

I hallucinated that giant wet green gobs of horse manure were coming up out of ann’s throat and falling out of her mouth

Anonymous

YIKES!!!

Anonymous

Ann is not a child of God, she is born of the Jackyl

Anonymous

ya think?

Anonymous

Ann likes to scissor with other women who have Adam’s apples

Anonymous

If you know what I mean

Anonymous

Oh I know what you mean

Anonymous

There is a gooey green horseturd hidden in that Adam’s apple

Anonymous

They call her Strap-On Ann

Anonymous

Do you think Ann would have stood up to the WWE rather than tucking her vagina between her legs, the way Glenn did?

Anonymous

Have you ever noticed that the real world around us has many different colors and shades of colors that work together? Because of the differences, a truthfull picture emerges. Not good enough for you? Okay. Try this one. Suppose you were on the Jersey Shore during Hurricane Sandy and got caught in your home with the ocean rising all around you. Are you telling me that you would have refused a helping hand from a rescuer because a rope was used instead of a net that you demanded? You’re going to be a statistic if you think that way. Here’s one bit of advice: pull your head out and grow the hell up or drown in the raging sea! Good luck to you.

Anonymous

Oy! Good night. Going to take a shower with my laptop to wash off the slime from this recent poster (whitedimples)! Anyway, it’s late here in the People’s Republic of California and I’ve enjoyed reading the serious comments! Cheers, mates!

landofaahs

OMG Glenn you cannot be serious. You are complaining that Ron Paul supporters are off the wall l because they demand 100% loyalty? I am a Ron Paul supporter and I encountered very few people who demanded 100% agreement. I do however recall that yuo yourself said and I quote “I agree with almost everything that Ron Paul stands for with the exception of his stand on Israel”. Talk about a one issue stand. Tell me Glenn, list every stand of Ron Paul that you disagree with. Outside of bleeding our country for Israel, I cannot recall your problem with him.
Ron Paul is no longer a politician yet you cannot seem to relieve yourself of your obsession of him. You have made numerous snarky comments about the Ron Paul supporters and you wonder why they did not fall in line and show up to vote for Romney? You’re an idiot and you continue to alienate the people who you claim you want to attract. The democrat party has no better friend than you.

landofaahs

Let me tell you something, I’ve had a couple people telling me after the election that the Republican party lost because of their stand on homosexuality and abortion. My only answer was “What was the economy like in in Sodom and Gomorrah the day after God dealt with them.

Anonymous

The Republican party lost for several reasons. First they forgot the idea that “a house divided against itself, cannot stand.” This idea is expressed in the Bible, and was known full well by President Lincoln, which was one of the reasons Civil War was fought.

They also lost because they blinked. When a person is in a fight, they had better know what they stand for; have conviction, and integrity, and not waiver. In waivering, they presented as weak. The American people don’t do weak. They have also never understood that they have been playing chess, with a master (metaphorically), and have failed to contemplate the opponents next moves, or potential moves. In failing to anticipate the lengths to which the the opponent would go, or tactics they would employ to win, they have walked blindly into every battle, and have been eaten alive. If Intelligence is the ability or capacity to adapt to change, they have not acted very intelligently.

landofaahs

Yes. The democrats are united under the banner of free stuff. It leads to hell of course but we have people 35 and under who do not remember Jimmy Carter. Live and learn.

Anonymous

As governor of California, Ronald Reagan passed the most liberal abortion law the nation had seen until that point.
As president, he granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
And though known as a tax cutter, he actually RAISED taxes more often then he cut them. Speaking to a crowd in Georgia, Reagan asked the crowd how could it be possible that a truck driver paid a higher tax rate than a CEO. He warned Americans we needed to “prevent the wealth of a nation from falling into the hands of a few.”
Reagan raised the debt ceiling numerous times. And it was under Reagan that America went from being a lending nation to a debtor nation—we started borrowing from other nations whereas before we only loaned to them.
Reagan put more land under federal protection than any president before him, and he was the first to even mention carbon emissions.

What chance would Reagan stand today with the Tea Party and conservative types? That’s why it’s so funny to hear people like Coulter praise Reagan. Look up Reagan’s actual record, not the myth created around him—he WAS a great president. He was also the ultimate RINO.

Anonymous

I am rather simple, so my definition of what made Ronald Reagan a good president was his presense. I was a democrat during his presidency, and did not vote for him. However, when I was in college, he came through Perrysburg, Ohio on a train, while running for re-election, in 1984. Even though I did not agree with him, and heard a bunch of liberal dogsh*t from my professors, I nevertheless wanted to see and hear him for myself. I went to the speech, and got a good standing place. The train came through town, and stopped. He came out on a platform, attached to the caboose, and spoke. It could have been 1850, by the looks of the setup. What struck me most, was a sense that I was listening to one of the great presidents. There was a presence that words cannot describe, and I would certainly not characterize myself as being star struck. In fact, at the time, I really didn’t agree with many of his policies.

Agree or not, I knew that we had a president who loved the United States of America. A president who had the best interests of this counrty in mind and heart. Although I was a youth, while Reagain was president, I felt a sense that this country was secure, and exceptional.

Although Reagan was rich, and powerful, I did have a sense that he could connect with the common man. This current president doesn’t give me this feeling in the least. At times I even believe that if the founders of our country could have looked into a crystal ball, and viewed this current president, actions and all, they would have been more emphatic in many areas of the Constitution. I think they would have been quite repetititive, and would have written the document in a way that could not be usurped. I think they would have emphasized the separation of powers, to a much greater degree. I also think that if they could have looked into such a crystal ball, they would not have had a solid bowel movement for weeks if not months.

We will all see how this plays out, but I for one still believe that the Constitution will prevail. However, I am also a believer that “pain is the touchstone of all spiritual progress,” and that one of the reasons that we are in our present predicament is due to a collective national spiritual sickness. Pain will prompt this country to change, and I know that good always wins in the end. During the fight, though, at times, it seems that it never will.

Regards,

MeanCortez

http://twitter.com/jorock65 jorock65

ya ,i think ann coulter is hot,i’m a libertarian,and i could lick her,pu!!ie all night,right after i smoke some good bud,

Anonymous

That was a great video. Yes, nobody likes to be around people who are dogmatic, in any fied, or walk of life. They present as dangerous, and conflictual, and for lack of a better way of saying it, a bit “touched.” That is where they lose their ability to communicate. They draw out strong reaction from others, and generally appear much as a boxer in the ring, challenging the crowd. There are some things that I personally will not waiver on, and the Bill of Rights is one of them.

I am glad that Mr. Beck discussed the notion that people don’t all have to agree, in order to remain friends, and coexist. This notion has pervaded in our country, from its inception, and is outlined very well in a large oil painting hanging in the Rotunda of the United States Capitol, entitled Declaration of Indenpendence, by John Trumbull. There has been a great deal of debate surrounding this work, but in the painting, Thomas Jefferson is depicted as stepping on the foot of John Adams. These fellas were political enemies, yet worked together for the common good of establishing this nation.

Anonymous

There is a lot I like about the Libertarians.I don’t like their stand on drugs but like every thing it stands for.I think it’s at good time for a real third party to come together for us conservatives and run a person on that platform like Rand Paul for example.Get the other conservative groups to join in and it would be a power in D.C.as well as the states too.One problem we are to fragmented to be able to do much good right now.We need to unite and become a force to recon with.

ken.

people who will use drugs will use them legal or not, instead of wasting billions of dollars a year with the criminal justice system which is not working at all. we can spend the money on prevention education and rehab and use the criminal justice system for murder, rape, theft, etc,…. also the prohibition provides the need for drug cartels and street gangs along with other black market crimes. people join gangs and cartels for easy money which causes 85% of the crimes including violent crimes. if you take away the easy money most people will not want to join a gang many already in a gang will leave. just like illegal immigration if you take away the jobs and free benefits they will leave on their own. we are fueling illegal immigration by not enforcing workplace laws. the war on drugs causes our crime rate to explode 85% more than without it. we already went through this during alcohol prohibition. most libertarians i know don’t like drug use and ant people to stop or never use to begin with. as a former substance abuse counselor i can tell you that the war on drugs is fueling drug use making it worse. prevention education and rehab is the only way to solve the problem.

Anonymous

OK First off Libertarians do not believe in National legalization of drugs. People do not understand the difference between legalization and decriminalization. Libertarians understand that freedom begins at the local level. This allows for many different subcultures to arise so that eople have the right to choose what happens around them at the community level. One state like Utah may keep drug use illegal while another like nevada may allow you to smoke horse traquilizers. Its about freedom of choice. and not only that freedom of choice but living with the consequences of those choices. The Government is there to run the courts and keep the infrastructure intact. Not to pick and choose winners and losers. Also by decriminalizing we take away the Mexican drug cartels reason to kill. Decriminalize drugs and we win the drug war. 40,000+ people have been killed in mexico becasue of this stupid war on drugs. decriminalize and we win. Game over. Then we can concentrate on solving the problem as a social issue. Not a criminal one.

also you do not have to be a christian to have morals. Just watch the Movie “cedar rapids” What two consenting adults do is their own business. Not mine, Not yours, Not the government’s. I could go on but I know its going to fall on deaf ears. 1% of the population gets it. The IQ bell curve is so unforgiving.

Anonymous

And how long have you been taking LSD? ’cause you are defenitely –tripping! Oh! Don’t forget I’m ok you’re Ok — even if you are on drugs. You’re vision of America under a Libertarian led government –sounds like Ancient Rome. A pagan society where everyone did as they pleased–disease, corruption, immorality, was the norm not the exception. Everything was acceptable–orgies, men with men, women with women women with animals, men with young children, eating until you vomitted then eat some more, poverty among the lower classes and starvation, poor health care, slavery, worshipping any god you wanted or sacrificing to that god. Of course killing of animals was ok or an occasional convict or slave. The games in the Colliseum were vicitim less ’cause Gladiators didn’t matter (they were in the entertainment business) Christians eaten by lions or burned at the stake didn’t matter–they weren’t citizens and were trouble makers. Hey, it is all about freedom of choice. If I chose to gamble away all my money instead of feeding my family,paying bills,or taxes—I’m ok. If I chose to drive drunk–so long as I don’t run over anyone–I’m ok. (Eventhough stats show that most drunk drivers are alcoholics and need counseling. Alcoholics are also often involved in domestic abuse, theft, assault and battery and felony related charges. But if I chose to drink who am I hurting? Why should we have laws about drinking? If we do away with a crime by declaring it no longer exists then surely there is no crime. If we get rid of the laws that make it a crime to meerly look into another person’s bedroom window at 2;00am in the morning— then since the crime no longer exists no one would do that anymore. You can extend that to any crime or law. So that by not making it a crime we no longer have a problem with that type of behavior. It just doesn’t exist. Don’t make a crime and it goes away—right? Subcultures at the local level? Let’s see– outlaw biker gangs, nieghborhood gangs, organized crime, local thieves, muggers, rapist, child abusers,etc. Prostitution, drugs,porn,etc—- all of these subcultures already exist and aren’t going to go away by making believe they don’t commit crime and break the law. By doing away with the law! You’re right “Mexico” has the problem! The drug cartels will tell you they are not the problem the USA is the problem because— it is supply and demand. They only sell a product. They are not the problem. So why doesn’t Mexcio make it legal to sell drugs in their country? If you are naive enough to believe that decriminalizing drugs is the answer–you have no concept of human nature or what humans are capable of. A libertarian America is certain chaos and anarchy. No matter what kind of smiley face you put on it!

Yes I do! Do you? If you do and already know the answer then why ask? Q.E.D. Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex

Anonymous

http://www.dailypaul.com/262267/caption-this-picture The REAL reason why Romney Lost. We warned the Neo cons they could not win without us. They broke the rules at the convention. Ron Paul delegates did nothing more than what the christian right did to the republican party back in the 90’s Used the delegate procedure to gain control. But when the tables turn they change the rules to keep neo cons in power. We did not forget, we will not sit down, we will not shut up!

Anonymous

Oh and another thing you Christian fuckwits seem to forget is that Jesus spent his time around whores, thieves, murderers, tax collectors etc. And told the Pharisees that their judgemental attitude will keep them out of heaven more than the drunks, druggies and whores . You morons are more offended by swear words and middle fingers than you are about poverty, war, and theft. (rolls eyes)

Thanks Glenn for your honesty and desire for this country to get Revived. I too have been inspired by Libertarian thought,putting gop ideology(progressive ) under micro and finding the truth.Note this; We students will become the founders of this thought .we have the constitution as our guide.The false idea of the 2 party system needs to be disected and educated more clearly to the electorate,that requires the media,,,,,,

Adam Topolnicki

This discussion is an example of what happens to a society that leaves Biblical principles out of the equation. Mindless idiots who are out of control. What someone puts in their body does not affect anyone else? Why does that need explanation? Of course drug use affects everything it touches socialist society or not. The oxymoron of gay marriage. In George Washington’s army homosexuality was a capital offense. Up until recently homosexuality was considered a psychological disorder. Homosexuality is perversion, it perverts the natural design. This generation has been brainwashed into thinking homosexuality is trendy. Commitment to family, God and country will put us on the back on the track to blessing. What I saw displayed in this discussion is a harbinger of what has happened to past societies who went down the road of degradation. When the foundations have been destroyed what can the righteous do? We can call our country to repentance and pray they listen.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/ Tuci78

“A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.”

— L. Neil Smith (1987)

The non-aggression (or “zero aggression”) principle. Occam’s Razor may not be all that well-known among “Liberals” or social pseudoconservatives, but logic rules in reasoned discourse.

Any pretense of reasoning, of course, is absent among both social pseudoconservatives and “Liberal” fascists.

This is why they’re not libertarians.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XT7VFEL7LT5GGTPXCOOLFUCV64 james

Ann Coulter has no credibility. She is a Rino supporting big mouthed idiot.

Anonymous

Can you point out a particular element in the attached video where you think Ms. Coulter got it wrong? And why it was wrong?

greywolfrs

Yes, she thinks that it’s about legalizing drugs, except Libertarians simply use that as a prime example of the government over-stepping their bounds concerning personal freedom. She also says that Libertarians are not taking on the tough issues, which is completely incorrect. The biggest problem this country faces is the Federal Reserve, neither the Republicans or Democraps will do that. Libertarians would get rid of entitlements, not “reform” them, you know those things that are breaking us?

Anonymous

So you’re saying Ms. Coulter should look beyond the actual discussion or question posed to her and surmise the deeper meaning or intent of the Libertarian? And do you realize that the best way to make changes in our government is to win elections and then enact your policies? Do Libertarians have a plan similar to that of the TEA Party of 2010?

Anonymous

I think the problem that people have with Ron Paul is that he is strictly by the book (Constitution). Something most people do not understand. He does not sugar coat the fact that we are a million miles away from the way this country was meant to be run. His foreign policy is what the Founders said our policies should be — minding our own business. He knows that we can’t keep funding more and more intervening actions or supporting foreign countries with aid. If anything, he uses plain common sense. Something Glenn should understand since he wrote a book about it!

Even though Coulter says a lot of interesting things, I feel she is more like the far right establishment in her views. She is not going strictly by the Constitution like Ron Paul does. I respect her for the fact she can take the heat from both sides for whatever she says. She is not PC like so many on the right try to be. Bravo, Ann!

I never thought of it this way but Coulter is right-libertarians are the ones who suck up to liberals. While Ron Paul was still running I saw many of my friends supporting him but all of them went for Obama in the end.

greywolfrs

That is a lie. Libertarians are for personal freedom, if that means liberals are for some of those things, so be it. Those are not Libertarians, if they voted for Obamao.

Anonymous

“Glenn went on to add that this is why he doesn’t understand so many of the Ron Paul supporters who dislike him for not always agreeing with Ron Paul. They let what he supports dictate all of their opinions on everyone else. If someone doesn’t stand shoulder to shoulder with Ron Paul, they immediately are on the attack.” Glenn, it’s not the “not always agreeing” part that is the problem. It’s the name calling and derision directed at Ron Paul during the campaign, which I personally heard from you on your shows, as opposed to respectful disagreement. And your support for Romney, who was unelectable as a big spending, big government, gun-controlling, government healthcare advocating statist, didn’t help.

Anonymous

Add to that Glenn’s derision of the ones who do not believe Obama is a legitimate President or that he won the election fair and square. I stopped listening to him when he went after so many others for not being PC.

The lawsuits against Obama do have legitimate reasons with all his fake identification. The courts just ignore the facts and throw out the cases on trumped up excuses. That’s not even counting the fact that he was “born” an English subject and NOT an American citizen even IF he was born in Hawaii. Being born a dual citizen does not equate to a “natural-born” citizen. Native-born, yes — natural-born, NO! Why people like Glenn, Coulter, Fox and even Ron Paul keep saying that Obama is a legitimate president, I will never understand. I can’t believe that they are all so stupid that they can’t see the evidence that verifies the truth. As long as they perpetuate the lie, they are ALL guilty of selling out the American people!

Anonymous

I think that most libertarians agree with Ann’s point about the rest of the socialist state. The reason that we focus on hot button topics such as pornography, drugs, etc is because there is such a distinction between the republicans and democrats on these issues. Both republicans and democrats are almost identical in their love of big government. One party gets power and wealth by going to war on American people/business and the other by going to war on foreign people/business. Part of the reason is that people like to talk about the other stuff, but if you ask any libertarian if we should have department of education, commerce, labor, etc they would without hesitation say “no”. This is why they are a third party, not a branch of the republicans/democrats. Unfortunately the system is set up so that republicans or democrats win because you need the backing of one of these parties, even if the majority of people in each party disagree with their party. If we had direct questions asked to the American people, we would quickly eliminate all sorts of government.

Coulter is right about the legalizing of pot, it is destructive to our people and will lead to further drug use. I was a hippie in the 70’s and liberal started with pot by the 80’s had progressed to a heavy cocaine habit and woke up and decided to stop, grow up and survive to tell and warn our young of the path of destruction that pot would take them. Sadly many of my friends of the 70’s died or are brain dead now. I now am a very conservative Libertarian and thik that Ron Paul is a Loony and not one of his followers. Beck speaks the TRUTH!

ken.

please read my earlier post and remember albert einstein said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. and not looking at past history causes us to make the same mistakes over and over again.

http://twitter.com/Flgirl722 Peggy

Instead, libertarians couldn’t, just this once, ban together to vote out Obama. Instead, they voted for a nanny state. If they had voted for Romney, Obamacare would be gone now. the libertarian movement is a good thing for this country, but keeping Obama in office by not voting for Romney? I just don’t get it.

greywolfrs

Let me explain it to you. You keep buying the B S that it was about getting rid of Obamao, but for us it was not. It was about standing by our principles and no more “voting for the lesser of two evils.” Doing that is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. You believe that the GOP can put up any clown and we are supposed to fall in line because it isn’t Obamao, sorry but it does not work that way…

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_X2NAPSXIXUJPOPPGU6CXVFQFLA Snorri Sturluson

I like the idea that neither liberal nor conservative politics should interfere with my personal life and Constitutional liberties. I believe that strong fences do indeed make good neighbors. I believe that your staying on your side of the fence and my staying on mine is the better way to live. I believe that I have a moral obligation to help distressed people within my means and within reason. I believe that people and families have a moral obligation to help each other before applying for charity and public assistance. Basically, I’m an independent who lives with my financial and physical means and feels that those that don’t do likewise should suffer the consequences.

http://twitter.com/fawnday Dawn Brayton

Isn’t politics all about seeing how many people agree with each other so they can elect a president? Seems like since libertarians are all individuals having someone who believes in running for president and signing things into law for everyone to follow it kind of defeats the whole purpose of being one. Ann Coulter doesn’t really have any argument if personal liberty is gone along with. She just wanted to yell again. She’s good at that.

BS61

Huh, the header – I thought it was a libertarian non-atheist, non-drug user that called out Ann Coulter. All a matter of perspective.

Anonymous

We need a new party. One that is not dogmatic, nor old and rotten. We need a party that is all inclusive, stands for the Constitution, one that is not formed to fight temporary fight. One that seeks excellence, and fairness, and does not foster a sense of dependence, nor reward people for simply existing. A party that has as its mandate to stand for freedom, against greed, and to never set up roadblocks for the American people. A party that seeks to move America forward, and lead the world, rather than take our place as simply another nation among nations. One that stands for the American way of life, and acknowledges that we as a nation exist under God. A party that operates in a light filled fear free zone. We need a new party, called The American Party. We need it formed and incorporated yesterday, and already seeking new members today. We need this as a base to work from, and an alternative to the corruption that prevails.

Anonymous

As someone who identifies as Libertarian, I agree with the point of this post. If we want actual Libertarian politicians in power, we must:

A) Drop the tribe mentality. Not much else to say that hasn’t been said.

B) Learn to compromise. Not compromise as it is thought of now in Washington, but to find the issues where we can make a deal and later on push for more. It’s not all or nothing. To make a major libertarian push in the USA, we must pick and choose our battles. No, that doesn’t mean that we are not following our principals. It means that we are realizing that certain things are higher priority and that enacting legislation is linear.

C) We don’t worship Barry Goldwater and Ayn Rand, and we are not the servants of the Paul dynasty. We absolutely don’t buy the spiked fruit punch of the Alex Jones/Prison Planet crowd. What killed the Republican party was the fact that they acted as a shelter to the Dixiecrats once they realized the LBJ wasn’t their guy. Because of that, the Republicans were seen as a party of old, racist, white men. To succeed, we must ostracize the crazy “Truthers” and conspiracy theorists, and distance ourselves from the worshipers of Ron Paul. To some extent, that’s why I typically refer to my self as identifying with classical liberalism. Because the word Libertarian carries a stigma now.

I know some folks are probably going to tell me that I know nothing about libertarianism. I don’t really care what you think of me. I’ve never been accepted by
anyone, and I don’t expect anyone to accept me going forward. I only ask
that you listen. I am individual. I, like must libertarians should, use the concept of a political party as a tool to accomplish what I want. Likewise, compromise doesn’t mean being trampled on. One side wants gun control, another side wants a bigger military budget. Why not play them both? We’ll agree to limit clip sizes in guns if the Democrats will agree to true tax reform and a drastic decrease in taxes. We’ll agree to support the military budget if Republicans will get behind Drug reform.

Libertarianism is not just a political party, but it is a political and social ideology. I live my everyday life according to these principals and values that I believe in. Unfortunately, most people in this country do not like these values and in fact despise them. For the libertarian ideology to be accepted, it will take time. In that time, we must adhere to our ideals in our personal lives, and live as examples that our way works on a personal scale. Live honorably. Live to make the lives of others better. Stand up for your beliefs, but accept that others can and must be allowed to have their own beliefs. This is the only way to make my dream, and your dream, come true.

greywolfrs

Ann could not be more wrong. She and a lot of Republicans believe that it is about legalizing drugs and prostitution, it is not. They are prime examples of the government over-stepping their bounds, nothing more. She says Libertarians are not taking on the tough issues? That is B S, Libertarians are the only ones talking about taking on the Federal Reserve and not just blowing smoke about it. Libertarians are the only ones talking about getting rid of entitlements, not just “reforming” them. Those are the two biggest issues/problems we have. I do not hear Democraps or Republicans talking about doing anything about the Federal Reserve and only talking about entitlement reform. Ann is simply name calling, nothing more. She backs the same GOP establishment lackeys and thinks she has a leg to stand on, what a joke.

Again, I must disagree, every thing Libertarian is NOT based on what Ron Paul believes. I have been a Libertarian for a very LONG time and supported Dr. Paul, but did not agree with everything he said. Ron Paul has been the only one in Washington forwarding the Libertarian ideas, therefore I can see why someone would say this, but it simply isn’t true. If your employee, Jon, wants to have a conversation about some Libertarians disliking Glenn I will, any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Here let me spell it out, sorry Glenn, but you can not trash Ron Paul and then back a clown like Romney without getting some negative feelings your way. You can not trash people, like myself, that did not vote for Romney and expect people to have a warm fuzzy feeling about you. I, personally, do not care, I have thicker skin than that, but some do not. I still listen to your show because I believe you do put out some good information, whether I agree with everything Pat, Stu and you say or not.

In the end, it’s not an all or nothing situation. The problem is the flip flop. One can not go from “forwarding” the Libertarian idea to reverting back to GOP establishment talking points. That leaves a bad taste in some people’s mouths, rightfully so.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4QTXG3EL4XVCV26VANOTJUZWJY smiley

Wait !! The GOVERNMENT has cornered the libertarians into being concerned ONLY with social issues at least publicly as seen here, the same social issues THEY are pushing (of course to bring division among the voters). So, the libertarians are being PC’d into social as the only issues. Why did not Stossel build the show around really important problem solving solutions that if not solved, are making everyone into a useful idiots of this socialist leaning government. It would have been a GREAT show if solutions to really important problems facing this nation were discussed. Get real, gays, pot disagreements will go away when more important issues of the nation are solved or fixed. The audience showed a mob mentality as Stossel promoted that.

http://www.facebook.com/giovanna.delapaz.18 Giovanna De La Paz

To me libertarians are those who dont know how or don’t want to make any decisions, so instead of looking at issues with a strong foundation base, whether it be Christian, Philosophical, etc, they want to give into everything. They don’t have a foundation of ideas, they have a se la vie (spelling?) attitude. They don’t like confrontation and seem to be outspoken only in groups rather than individually.

Anonymous

With all due respect, you are completely wrong. How is it that opposing high taxes, opposing the government control of our life, and standing for liberty over security is “not being able to make decisions”?

The foundation of ideas that we have are those that Jefferson had. They are the ideas of the Age of Enlightenment. We believe that men should be free to make their own life decisions, not some entity.

greywolfrs

OK, I am individual Libertarian and have no problem with confrontation. You are WRONG. You are the type of person who believes that the government needs to protect us from ourselves. We do not give into everything, we simply believe that people have the right to make their own choices regarding their lives. We don’t have a foundation of ideas? Go to the Libertarian website and look at our foundation, before you spout anymore of this stupidity.

http://www.facebook.com/matthew.schwartz.568 Matthew Schwartz

Why do Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters have a visceral
negative reaction to Glenn Beck? Pat and Glen may be asking a rhetorical
question for it is not a difficult question to answer.

During the 2008 and 2012 primaries three main factions were
in competition within the GOP; the party machine, the conservative media and
the liberty movement. At least from the rhetoric, the liberty movement
and the conservative media were potential allies against the party machine.

For many in the liberty movement, Ron Paul was the last
chance for the country to avoid disaster; his candidacy was the last exit ramp
on the Rome highway. In contrast, each of the conservative candidates
represented a growing overseas military presence, continued civil rights encroachment
and an inadequate fiscal and monetary policy response. The conservative
candidates policies’ were viewed as too little and far too late. While Ron Paul was
not the perfect political candidate, he was viewed as the best man at a
very critical time in history.

The conservative media as represented by Glenn Beck, Rush
Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin were well aware of their role as opinion
shapers of that portion of the electorate vital to picking a Republican nominee.
Against that backdrop, Glenn and others in the media opted to personally attack
the liberty candidate to marginalize the movement. They labeled the man as a
kook, a whacko, dangerous, naïve, and a simpleton. From Rush a warning that a
Ron Paul nomination would destroy the Republican party, from Levine a threat to
de-seat his son Rand Paul as retribution for following a convention strategy. From Glenn, that his foreign policy would lead to more terrorism at home, Israel’s demise and possibly WWIII.

What should have been a debate over ideas and the near
future of the country became just another Ann Coulter monologue – where ridicule and zingers leave an emotional
effect on the listener rather than reason informed. The conservative media propped up a simplified
version of his policies as a Ron Paul straw man and torched it. Any extreme behavior by a liberty supporter was painted as typical in the liberty movmement. In
contrast, the party machine candidates were treated with a good degree of
civility despite the serious policy disagreements.

The Republican party machine had to simply stand by as the conservative
media camp tore down the smaller liberty movement, permitting the party machine
to infiltrate the conservative tea party movement from behind and pick off the conservative
candidates one by one. The result was predictable. The party machine selected the
GOP nominee yet again. The conservative media camp, so unwilling to consider a Paul
candidacy, quickly aligned with the party machine behind Romney – just as they did
with the Bushes, McCain and Dole.

So the question has its simple answer. The liberty movement
views Glenn and those in the conservative media negatively; for despite the proclamations
from the microphone the liberty movement has repeated evidence that the
conservative media – when push comes to
shove – prefers the establishment inertia over the liberty movement and principles.

Ironically, just 3 months past November’s elections, Rush is
now a pessimist on the GOP, Levine is ranting about tyranny’s installment by the
GOP machine politicians, Hannity’s heart is troubled that the GOP machine would
purge the tea party from it ranks, Glenn is fearful of the future as the GOP signs on to an arms
transfer to Muslim Egypt – a real threat to Israel and the world war.

All this new hand-wringing over the GOP direction that the conservative media actually helped perpetuate. A GOP direction that the liberty movement may have have avoided if it had the backing of the conservative media in the primaries.

Anonymous

A well thought out commentary on the faux news of the right wing media.

Pamela Peltonen

Ann Coulter is nothing but a shock jock with a foul mouth. I’m disappointed and embarrassed by her.

Anonymous

God save us from the Libertarians. I agree with Ann! Research where the Libertarian Party came from and what they really believe. The Party as a whole not just some of the people that are members. They will scare the hell out of you. Their vision for this country is nothing short of chaos and and anarchy. Legalizied drugs , legalize prostitution, gay marriage, abortion on demand,no foreign policy, no military,virtually no laws or enforcement of laws. You don’t hurt me and I don’t hurt you. I’m ok you’re ok! So called “victim less” crimes are all ok. (Except there is no such thing!) All we need is thousands of more drug addicts, alcoholics, gambling addicts,etc. Child abuse and pornography go hand in hand. Talk to the police that deal with child abusers and they will tell you that it starts with porn. All the serial killers started with porn.(Just a victim less crime hat should be treated as ok in society—According to Libertarians). It is a perversion and in opposition to what God intended as healthy sex between a married man and woman. Human trafficing and prostitution go hand in hand, drugs and prostitution always are parteners with Organized crime–world wide. Common ground? With the libertarians? I’m sure that’s what
people said about socialism in Sweden,communism in Russia and Obama’s policies in this last election. NO THANK YOU!

Anonymous

You are so totally wrong about libertarianism it isnt even funny. We accept your chirstianity just as much as we accept prostitution with two consenting adults. What part of Violence are you not understanding? Whether you are taking property or doing bodily harm you are committing violence. I wont go on as I know most hard core christian fuckwits don’t believe that someone who doesn’t practice their brand of faith have any morals.

Anonymous

Two consenting adults who are enslaved by lies — and there are those who “accept” it. Accept? Really? Slavery is violence.

How about “Tolerate” (from the Latin “toleratus” — to endure)? We must endure the presence of Evil but never condone it.

Anonymous

Ok there is so much mis information here I don’t even know where to begin. I will do my best. This will land on deaf ears as its not information asked for but here goes. Are you ready for your ass kicking?

God save us from the Libertarians. I agree with Ann! Research where the Libertarian Party came from and what they really believe. The Party as a whole not just some of the people that are members. They will scare the hell out of you. Their vision for this country is nothing short of chaos and and anarchy.Nothing further from the truth. Libertarians believe in the original constitution of the three branches of government. We believe if someone seeks violence against another it is wrong. whether it is property life or lifestyle. I stand up for your christianity, why do you not stand up for those who do no harm to you? Legalizied drugs , legalize prostitution, gay marriage, abortion on demand We wish to decriminalize these things at the federal level. there is no need for these laws. As government draws away from it’s source , we the People, it should get weaker not stronger.,no foreign policy, no militaryWrong again, the symbol for the party is the porcupine. we believe in a very strong DEFENSE but are no threat to anyone. A donkey is an ass and an elephant just tramples over people with little regard.,virtually no laws or enforcement of laws. wrong again! laws are in force to protect those who would do harm to others. what happens between two adults is of no concern to me, you or the government.You don’t hurt me and I don’t hurt you. I’m ok you’re ok! So called “victim less” crimes are all ok. (Except there is no such thing!) All we need is thousands of more drug addicts, alcoholics, gambling addicts,etc.wrong again! Once we stop treating the above mention problems as social probelms and not criminal problems we can adjust society to be more free reign. Child abuse and pornography go hand in hand. Talk to the police that deal with child abusers and they will tell you that it starts with porn. All the serial killers started with porn.(Just a victim less crime hat should be treated as ok in society—According to Libertarians). You are going to have genetically defective people. Porn has little to do with it. Millions watch porn everyday, only a few thousand actually have a twisted enough mind to pervert it. and if they hurt a child they should be locked up. becasue they are not allowing that child to grow properly and have taken something from him or her. forcefully with violence. I ask again, what part of violence do you not understand? It is a perversion and in opposition to what God intended as healthy sex between a married man and woman. Human trafficing and prostitution go hand in hand, drugs and prostitution always are parteners with Organized crime–world wide. Common ground? It’s only a crime if one person is forced into a transaction with another. Once again you do not understand the non violent part of libertarianism?With the libertarians? I’m sure that’s what
people said about socialism in Sweden,communism in Russia and Obama’s policies in this last election. NO THANK YOU!Libertarianism has nothing in common with socialismLike
Reply

Anonymous

in reply to Nick Shea. Thank you! You have made my point!

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JKVX3VKUJZAWBS3OPFWDWYRRXQ Endgame

Another neocon representing the globalist criminal bankers phony “left vs right paradigm” who thinks that big government is a good idea and that big brother should stick their noses into to private lives of Americans. She obviously is clueless as to the definition of the word “freedom.”

Take 2

Libertarians see ‘all’ not (good or bad) two political spectrum’s like Ann…!

frank thecrank

The biggest problem i have had with Glenn was his support of big government Rick Santorum , I do not believe he checked him out deeply before he endorsed him.

Davidt

Right on Ann for President to knock Hillary/Billy silly and clean everyone’s clock. “Liberal”tarions are one of the biggest dangers to a sovereign America and the world at large. More social garbage from losers that just got old outdated Hemp legalized to now be subsidized by us. Free Trade in any drug you want just like the ” democrats”.They don’t know the history about the First English Quran and deny the obvious threats. Just more appeasement cowards and losers especially in our very sick military. Check out this Glenn Beck hack:

Maybe it had something to do with Glenn Beck ridiculing just about everyone in the GOP nomination for president, except Rick Santorum, one of the most liberal of them all. Rick Santorum doesn’t stand for limited government, he wants to be in the bedrooms of people, he is not Libertarian AT ALL, he even came out and said he doesn’t like the “Libertarianish right”, choose YOUR FRIENDS wisely Glenn. For you to say you’re Libertarian now, after supporting a guy like Rick Santorum, that’s just absurd. Us Libertarians now just know whichever way the media wind blows, there will be Glenn floating along with it.

Anyway, every party platform has those stupid voters that vote for them just b/c… let them alone and let them vote, concentrate your power elsewhere.

http://www.facebook.com/charles.stypick Charles Stypick

hey Glen, I’m a Libertarian and I’ve been a supporter of your’s a for a few years now. I don’t agree with you on everything but about 90% of the issues I do. Keep up the good work. I was at Restoring Love and hope to see you again this summer

http://profile.yahoo.com/IAOEMZJSY7EQT3GLICF2FVVO3U William Melton

glenn i NOW really accept you!!! i know i dont speak for everyone but i will try to help get ur message of now trying to change!! i have always liked u but not always ur message u seem to really want to fight for what is right please doing more episodes on ur evolving liberal episodes thanks you!

http://profile.yahoo.com/IAOEMZJSY7EQT3GLICF2FVVO3U William Melton

i will now resubscribe to ur stations because of ur attitude!! i reconize we as people dont have any other media outfit to help us thank you beck for ur apology!!!!!

http://twitter.com/cruzpenlope1 cruzpenlope

upto I saw the draft four $4767, I accept that…my… best friend woz actualey taking home money in there spare time on their apple laptop.. there friends cousin had bean doing this for only about 16 months and a short time ago took care of the dept on their home and purchased a top of the range Alfa Romeo. go to, pie21.comCHEK IT

Anonymous

Coulter is retarded. Period.

Anonymous

Oh, and Glenn is even more retarded (yes, it’s possible)

greywolfrs

Looks like you speak from experience.

Anonymous

The biggest issue of why Glenn is shunned by true libertarians is his insistance on an entangling alliance with Israel. Israel is nothing but a big bully in the Middle east. They have stolen lands from the indegenious people since the UN led attack on the land of palestine. they having been stealing the land since and treating the palenstinians like crap. If you looked at both sides objectively you would see it plain as day but christian fuck wits are only allowed to to look at on source for all their info. such a shame. SMH.

http://www.youtube.com/user/MrDrawingguy MrDrawingguy

The libertarian movement grows stronger by the day. Until the GOP realizes this it could be a very long time before we see a republican president again.

Anonymous

Nick Sha,

The Jewish people did not seal that land. Let me give you a bit of education. I can see that rather than an education, either self educated, or in an academic sense, you have what is called an edumacation; which makes you all edumacated like.

Now, we will begin with a history lesson that dates back thousands of years. We have plenty of evidence that the Jewish people lived on the piece of land known today as Israel, two thousand years ago, and that they were dispersed by the Romans. They became known as the Diaspora. When the Jewish people became interested in returning to their ancestral homeland (a movement called Zionism), subsequent to WWII, they petitioned the British governement, who administered that land, as they had won it fair square, which is what generally happens when one nation wins a war against another nation and their allies (AKA present day Turkey, who sided with Germany in WWII).

The Jewish people took every legal step possible, to insure that their movement toward statehood was valid from the very onset. They were very diligent, and also, as Jewish people are, when they put their minds to something, quite successful.

That being said, when they began to populate the land we now know as Israel, what they found was for the most past, a sparsely populated land that was a mix of unlivable desert, and mosquito infested swamps in the costal areas.

They got to work, and in a short time transformed the land from a miserable place, to a highly desirable place to live. Of course, this brought a multitude of Arabs, from all over the Middle East, who were seeking work, much as we see with the Mexican population who come to America to seek work. These Arabs, who came to Israel in large numbers, were attempting to escape the poverty they experienced in their countries of origin. They settled there, and began to do menial work. They came in such large numbers that it was overwhelming, as in effect they were seeking charity, and their countries of origein benefitted by relieving themselves of a large number of needy people, who were also able to send resources home to their families in their respective countries. Many of the Arab countries they came from encouraged them to go to Israel, and the little known fact is that they actually prevented them from returning home to their own countries, as this created a permanent point of contention.

Once the Arabs were present in large numbers in Israel, they wanted citizenship, which would have in effect destroyed the Jewish nation, as the Arabs outnumbered the Jewish people. This created contention that still exists today.

This contention was further exacerbated by the fact that the surrounding Arab nations tried multiple attempts to beat up on little old Israel, in a military fashion, and for lack of a better way of saying it, got their asses handed to them, as people in Appalachia say. Imagine that one little country beat the dogsh*t out of 6 others, all at once. Now can you imagine what that did to the Arab pride? I will tell you what it did; it created a resentment, which frequently happens when one’s pride is hurt. This happens at the individual level, and between nations. This hurt pride has resulted in all of the problems that we see between the Jewish people, and their Arab neighbors, as well as the Arab inhabitants within the Jewish borders, who are presently defining themselves as “Palestinians.” What is needed is for Arabs to do a moral inventory of themselves, and come to understand how their hurt pride has effected them and others, in their struggle with Israel. I for one won’t hold my breath in waiting for them to undertake such an activity.

So again, what we now have is a people known as “Palestinians,” who never existed prior to the establishment of the Jewish state. There is no such thing as true Palestinians, except for the meager numbers of people who again, sparsely populated Israel, prior to the establishment of the Jewish state.

The problems outlined above are not unique to Israel. Much the same process took place in South Africa, which prior to European arrival was a sparsely populated wasteland. In that country, a similar process unfolded with people coming from far and wide to seek employment. In fact, now they even far outnumber the European settlers who actually created that nation.

Therefore Nick, if you want to better understand these things, don’t listen to the talking points of others, and jump on political bandwagons. Don’t let others do the heavy lifting for you, and then go around spouting off whatever they told you. When you do that, in fact, you are the one being used, because they are not doing the heavy lifting, you are in carrying their message. It isn’t that hard or heavy to make up nonsense and get others to carry it. Rather, do the heavy lifting for yourself. Educate yourself, and learn the history behind these issues. What you will find is that the world isn’t quite as clear cut as you thought. You will see that those you believe are wrong, may be right, and vice versa. Look at the facts, keep an open mind, and don’t swallow what you are fed. Look at the details, and then form an opinion. What you will then have is an education. Anything less is an edumacation, and that isn’t worth the price of the paper your diploma was not printed on.

a picture is worth a thousand words. The only reason Israel kicked their asses is that they were backed by the UN. Now they buy all our hand me downs. The land was given to them by the UN after WWII because everybody felt sorry for them and when the Old ottomons tried to take it back the Israel cried foul and got help from the UN and later the US. If we stopped handing them weapons I bet Israel would be a lot different in how they worked with the rest of the arab world.

There is no good guy /bad guy in this. Its all messed up and it entangles us as a nation. we dont have any treaties with Israel but so many are so afraid of some demigod boogey man coming down and smiting us if we don’t side with Israel we are duped into believing that Israel is the good guy and the arabs are the bad. Its a sick and twisted mess we should not be a part of.

Anonymous

also by the” jews were there first logic” you have to do the same with the Native americans and the aborigines of austrailia and canada. So you want your cake and eat it too?

Anonymous

Nick,

It seems that on every forum I have ever been a member of, there is someone who throws a sh*tball, and waits to see people react. Many times people argue with others when in fact, they are on the same page, but they just want to test their points, and the anonymity of the internet permit them to do this. Based on that, I find it highly unlikely that a person with your writing abilities, and character, actually believes what they are saying here.

Of course the Jewish people needed a state, and it was logical for them to obtain the land that their ancestors inhabited. Just like all people they have made mistakes, but they have not been the ones who agressed on others. Of course they have received help from the U.S., but their military equipment is superb, including tanks, and fighter planes. They are a remarkable people, and they are democratic. Therefore, notwithstanding the religious aspect of this nation, I will always be a supporter of these people, and would not be surprised to find that you are as well. If you are not, I suspect that there is nothing that anyone here, or anywhere could do to change your mind. In fact, I wouldn’t even wish to try that. I am sure however, that you could find many venues, in which to offer disscussion on these matters, and even drop a sh*tball or two. On the otherhand, those may not be as recreational for you.

Regards,

Mean Cortez

Anonymous

In reply to Nick Shea. Thanks again for making my point. (God save us from the Libertarians!)
Every time you try to justify your opinion–you make my point about an America with a Libertarian led government. Thank you.

Anonymous

How is my reply justifying your point? Just repeating the same thing over and over again doesnt make you right. I could say the word matzah ball over and over again and claim to be right. Your words have no meaning. frothy emotional appeal is all it is, No facts or depth whatsoever.

It’s funny how our forefathers warned us about foreign entaglements (i beleive that was George washington, glenn beck’s hero) yet we insist on having a foreign entanglement with Israel.

At least I try to back up my opinion with sound facts and not justify it by the boogeyman coming to get me if I don’t behave. You don’t need christianity to have morals. I have said this time and time again but Christians are so blinded by there mentality it makes no sense if you tell them the sky is blue they will disagree with you because God said it was chartreusse.

And before you go off on another God rant i bet I’ve read the Bible more than you so watch out. I have even been baptized as a Mormon! The closest thing that comes to a sane religion to me anyway is Bahai’ and believe me I looked at em all.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1239336439 Wolf Onnie

Funny, I can remember when Ann was a liberty defender.I guess their not much money in it.She sounded like a idiot not one of her better performances. I am a long time constitutionalists who have voted Republican my whole life except. on 3 occasion and no I did not vote for Obama.Ron Paul has been correct since 1975 and if you still have your doubts well all I can say is you deserve everything you are getting. Yes I support hemp and decriminalizing a god given plant.who cures some types of cancers and helps people whom have cancer among so many more ailments.Our founders didn’t have a problem with it and neither do I. The tough issues are the fed,following the constitution period.prohibition does not works.

Anonymous

I started to get involved with the Libertarian movement back in the 1980s and they had the same mob mentality as the liberals. There was little room for compromise. if you were pro-life or pro-Israel you were demeaned or belittled. I can see it has not changed. They want you to compromise but they won’t. Nothing is going to change for the good so long as we take a hard line on every single issue. Coulter is right. We should never go bragging to the liberals that we support any of their policies because their ideology leads to total enslavement – no matter what the issue,

http://profile.yahoo.com/IT3SZRDN2ETAFGY7RBM23OMP3M Steven

I love Ann. She articulately shares OUR common values and common sense solutions to this mire yall elected again. I live in NY. Too bad she didn’t get to address gun laws.

http://www.facebook.com/wslakes Catfish Shane Lakes

first off no war is sustainable. So that is a dumb word combo I get tired of hearing. Second the libertarians stand pretty much for the issues as I do yet they do act like they are either hippies that dont believe in war period, or are potheads that think the Declaration of INdi should be ripped up and re-writen on rolling papers. Hard to take them seriously

Anonymous

The declaration of independence was written on hemp paper which is illegal today. You could smoke a joint the size of a telephone pole of hemp and not get high yet it is illegeal. Probably because of the tobacco and alcohol lobby.

http://profile.yahoo.com/IT3SZRDN2ETAFGY7RBM23OMP3M Steven

I love Ann! I find myself agreeing with most of her views. She states her positions well. She’s a fox as well.

John Miller

Nobody ask her about pot, they ask about the drug war.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JICZ4JDRPY3N3KVQXWW4AD2OUU niki

Ann coulter is soooo AWESOME! Someone putting drugs into their body because I then have to pay for their health care, and when they are driving and hit someone or when they are taking drugs and they go and become cannibals. Everything we do affects everyone else. period.

greywolfrs

You are so dumb, you say this about drugs but never bother to mention alcohol. All those things are happening with alcohol, but then you might not be able to have a beer. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Anonymous

We should make guns illegal too! I mean if guns were illegal then no one would die form guns right? Lets blame the inanimate objects for the misfortune instead of the source. right! (insert sarcastic smirk here)

ken.

the war on drugs is a complete failure and does nothing to solve the problem in fact it creates a whole network of black market criminals who created an 85% increase in the nations crime rate. most violent crime is fueled by drug sales. kids join gangs for the easy big money of drug sales, take that away and the gangs lose their members. the border problem is mostly due to drug trafficking. you will never stop drugs by arresting people and putting them in prison. the only way to stop drug use is to use prevention education and rehabilitation. people who use drugs will use drugs whether they are legal or not, in case you haven’t noticed our country has a drug epidemic even with the war on drugs. why waste billions of dollars a year on something that doesn’t work and creates a violent crime spike of 85% when we can can spend it on prevention education and rehabilitation which works. alcohol prohibition didn’t stop use one bit, it created gangsters and a crime wave. use stayed the same because of the lack of prevention education and rehabilitation. smoking is now starting to decline due to prevention education, drug use is also starting to decline slightly. we need to fix the problem at the source not try to put a band aid on the symptom. you can take pain medication to block the pain from an injury, but it won’t fix the injury.

greywolfrs

One thing you forgot to mention is the amount of money being spent on law enforcement. There would be no need to have the DEA right on down to the drug enforcement on the local level. That would also save the government a ton of money, from the Feds all the way down to the local level.

Another thing you forgot, if drugs were legal, that is another industry that would be paying taxes, create jobs for production, distribution and retail, just like alcohol.

I can tell most people don’t have the first clue about this issue. They spout their B S and never mention a word about alcohol. All the things they mention are the same issues we have with alcohol, yet I do not see any of them talking about reinstating prohibition on alcohol.

http://twitter.com/FrankQ007 Frank Johnson

Ann speak your mind….Love U

http://twitter.com/FrankQ007 Frank Johnson

Small minds can’t handle your intelligence….

Anonymous

I am a libertarian, Beck and the readers here are not. Let’s call it a draw, you go your way, we go ours. You are not us, we are not you. Our goals are more long term, let the dems rule the country for 20 years, we don’t care. Have a nice day.

Anonymous

This is a mute point. Until Glenn Beck admits weed should be legal, gays have the same exact rights to marry and a woman can do what she wants with her body, there is no conversation. Stop trying to infiltrate and divide and conquer the libertarian movement. Glenn Beck was toast back when he trashed Ron Paul, it’s over Glenn. Just stay on “hate island” with Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly and your hateful followers, Just leave us alone.

Anonymous

Just remember, envy and jealousy is the realm of a mediocre mind. Coulter and Beck, Limbaugh, et. al. Mediocre Minds.

Anonymous

approximate transcript of Ann coulter and a real libertarian rebuttal.

Ann: Iraq war good, afganastan bad!
Me: no! totally backwards you ignorant slut. we supplied arms to BOTH sides of the Iran/Iraq war (remember when we referred to saddam as King hussein in the 80s? I do) Through the Iran contra scandal. when sadaam found out about this he wanted to change the rules about how his oil was going to be shipped and how much the US was going to pay. The US didn’t like that and started an embargo, sadaam then “annexed” kuwait. You know the rest of the story….

the camps where the the 9/11 terrorists were trained were in afganastan. so was Bin laden. If george hadn’t been busy fucking Iraq over I bet we could have finished the job long ago instead of 12 years later in pakistan.

Dont even get me started about Iran. I got videos to show you.

Asked question :how about the war on drugs:
ann: rant on and on about how we are pussies about pot.

Me: we asked about the WAR on DRUGS! Not decriminalization of pot! Talk about avoiding the issue. The war on drugs has cost 40,000+ lives in Mexico alone. yet usage has not dropped one bit. Money could be better spent elsewhere but she thinks economic issues that are man made are more important than social issues which are culturally and naturally created. Money would be better spent on education and prevention than on housing non violent dug offenders.

Why dont you get to the root cause of our economic woes. It’s not socialism. The tax rate for the super rich is half of what it was in the 50 and 40s. I got a graphic if you would like to see that expresses this nicely. But you are just a whore selling books to the brain washed masses. Ann. the Federal reserve. I could write a whole dissertation on how that is fucking up the economy.

Asked the question about gay marriage:
Ann: Liberals want to destroy the family
I know many democrats who love family values. Most jews are democrats. How do you explain that ann? Once again dances around the topic and wants to go into other people’s bedrooms who are doing no harm to her. It’s none of your fucking business ann. Get a life and if its such a non issue compared to other issues why are you so dead set against it? Because the Bible says so? here comes the Boogey man! Going to get you.

We do take on the economic issues. What republican candidate gets to the root of the problem? the Fed is the biggest threat to our national security yet no questions it. 12 men have a monopoly on the worlds money supply. 12 unelected men. If they can print money out of thin air then so can I.

BTW, counterfeiting is a capital offence in the constitution. Look it up.

Anonymous

In reply to Nick Shea, Thanks again— as usual you made my point for me again. God save America from Libertarians. Please continue –it saves me the time,effort and energy in responding when you supply the material to keep making my point. Thank You!

I think Ann Coulter makes a lot of sense, for one thing, in the situation this Country is in the last thing we need to be worried about it legalizing pot but if they want to get into it, the young lady that stood up and said “Why do you care if I smoke pot or what I put in my body if it only affects me?” STUPID QUESTION, that has been asked since the 60’s. It most certainly does affect everyone else, you get in a car and drive after smoking pot and kill a member of my family or anyone else’s, it defiantly affects me. You smoke pot and then make decisions that affect the way you conduct your business and it affects the entire Country. Most of all you smoke pot and then have children and it affects the child, the schools, and most of all health care so really, for educated people, you are asking some really stupid questions and I agree completely with Ann Coulter.

Anonymous

The question was about the drug war. I guess 40,000+ people killed doesn’t affect you either. You are more offended by swear words and boobs than you are about murder, poverty, war and the destruction of our environment. I find these things highly offensive. Boobs. Not so much.

What the heck are you talking about, I was agreeing with Ann that maybe, just maybe at this point in our Country’s history we are not in a position to worry about legalizing pot. I was also taking exception to the fact that a woman who is suppose to be educated could truly ask the question, “It’s no one’s business what I put in my body, who am I hurting, no one but myself.” This is one of the dumbest statements that has been made and it is usually made by teenagers who don’t have a clue. You only have to watch a baby who is born addicted to drugs once to see who is being hurt. Last question what the heck do Boobs have to do with anything???? Unless maybe your smoking!!!

Anonymous

It is none of your business what somebody does to their own bodies, However, I agree on the point that once you drive a car or commit harm to another in any other fasion you should be held accountable. That being said decriminalizing HEMP in all its forms could turn this country around. It would opne a whole new industry that would create Millions of jobs. Not only its recreational form but the Hemp plant can be used to make rope, clothes, fuel, even houses! It’s uses are endless! And to top it off its a weed so it’s very easy to grow and does not need rotation. The forefathers wrote about the virtues of Hemp but it became illegal in the 1940’s after WWII because of “refer madness!”

If I was president my first executive order would be to decriminalize Hemp and bring it back to standing it had with our forefathers.

I Also want to say to Nick that the drug wars are not about Pot. Unless you want to make all drugs legal, which would be just about the stupidest thing this Country could ever do but unless your going to do that, it’s not even going to make a dent in the whole drug war situation!!

Anonymous

There is a difference between decriminalization and making something legal. At the Federal level all drugs should be decriminalized and then let state, county, and townships decide how best to define what is legal and what is not. The source of Government is the people and as such Government should get weaker as it gets farther from the source from which it was created. It’s natural law to do that as Glenn talked about in his bear cave analogy . Light gets weaker from its source, gravity gets weaker from its source so should government. but control freaks want to pervert that. which creates the messes we have today in government.

As for booobs I was trying to make a point where the news will be filled with gasps of horror because of a “wardrobe malfunction” exposing a perfectly natural and beautiful part of a woman or bleeping out the word “pussy”yet gloss over, war, poverty, starvation, and the destruction of our environment as if it is the norm. Its not the norm and its not sustainable what we are doing.

tryin

Glenn, I watched Stossel this morning, yeah I’m a bit slow on watching things but I got to tell you what Coulter looked like was atypical conservative who keeps harping on the talking points and not looking at the substance of the questions or even understanding the issues themselves.

Let’s take the drug war, for many of us libertarians it isn’t about the actual use of drugs but the civil liberties that are stripped away with the present style of policing we have in this country, which Stossel pointed out near the beginning of the show with the puppycide segment. Coulter kept insulting everyone with the idea that we want to get wasted and use drugs but she never mentioned rights or how we are to deal with cases of abuse that have taken place. I think this is part of the issue with most conservatives who look like they are closed minded, and as you pointed out, there is a herd mentality that is happening within the political parties that isn’t good. IF Coulter would have come up with something else that spoke to the root of the issues that were spoken about, the conservative movement and Coulter wouldn’t have looked like liberals.

With that, the republicans have turned a corner, they are just the same as the democrats only with a different mascot. The idea that conservatives are for small government, rights and so on seems to be far from the truth when you examine the role of the conservative ideals in today’s political climate. I mean they seem to do the same thing, talk about using laws to control behaviors.

Guest

Glenn Beck is NOTHING more than a shill for the large corporations.

Blaze TV: corporate lies live there.

Guest

No Vicky<2, you are the shill and brainwashed idiot of the lefty libtards. There is a reason they (you) are called libtards. HAHAHAHAH!

Guest

“But, despite being the only media organization at this Libertarian convention, they were attacked for it.”

heres a bullet list of why ann coulter shouldnt even be in politics: no wonder libertarians dont like her lol…

1. for iraq but against afganishstan?? cant have crazed terrorists out there?? when its been proven 9/11 is inside job??
2. government is here to protect us from enemies?? no, america is the #1 most armed country, we need the government to stop 9/11ing us all the time
3. she said they were from iraq and they werent, the host had to correct her and she had to pull it together haha!!
4. WHAT, she said we should go to war everytime the government says were in danger.. (LOL, for someone in politics to word something like this, she thinks her audience must be stupid)
5. iraq is a magnificent war?? we should force a regime change for many different countries lol..
6.drug war- anyone with a fuckin brain would know the anti-war-on-drug movement is NOT TO LEGALIZE POT…. its to put out of business any drug cartels, including the government, which is a big hint as to who her employers are if she comes on here and makes a POT joke out of this topic…

ann coulter is a moron.

Keith Lancaster

The documents she refers to in the “definitely looking for uranium from Niger.” statement were proven to have been forged. Ann Coulter is an idiot with verbal diarrhea, but in America you only have to be a little bit smarter than your audience to made a grand living at selling snake oil. Oh the humanity….

Rick

To be both condeming of illegal pot while supportive of legal vicodin say shows idiocy permeates this person.
Opiates vs near harmless drugs?